U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON :

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing OfficeInternet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

22–121 PDF 2016

OVERSIGHT OF UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT

HEARING BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

SEPTEMBER 22, 2016

Serial No. 114–94

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR.,

Wisconsin LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas STEVE CHABOT, Ohio DARRELL E. ISSA, California J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia STEVE KING, Iowa TRENT FRANKS, Arizona LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas JIM JORDAN, Ohio TED POE, Texas JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania TREY GOWDY, South Carolina RAUL LABRADOR, Idaho BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas DOUG COLLINS, Georgia RON DeSANTIS, Florida MIMI WALTERS, California KEN BUCK, Colorado JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas DAVE TROTT, Michigan MIKE BISHOP, Michigan

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan JERROLD NADLER, New York ZOE LOFGREN, California SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas STEVE COHEN, Tennessee HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR.,

Georgia PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico JUDY CHU, California TED DEUTCH, Florida LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois KAREN BASS, California CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana SUZAN DelBENE, Washington HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island SCOTT PETERS, California

SHELLEY HUSBAND, Chief of Staff & General Counsel PERRY APELBAUM, Minority Staff Director & Chief Counsel

(III)

C O N T E N T S

SEPTEMBER 22, 2016

Page

OPENING STATEMENTS

The Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ................................. 1

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......... 3

WITNESS

The Honorable Sarah Saldana, Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs En-forcement, Department of Homeland Security Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 6 Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 9

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

Prepared Statement of the Karen Bass, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary ................. 5

Material submitted by the Honorable Scott Peters, a Representative in Con-gress from the State of California, and Member, Committee on the Judici-ary ......................................................................................................................... 56

APPENDIX

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Questions for the Record submitted to the Honorable Sarah Saldana, Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Se-curity ..................................................................................................................... 68

OFFICIAL HEARING RECORD

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD BUT NOT REPRINTED

Material submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary. This ma-terial is available at the Committee and can also be accessed at:

http://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=105348

(1)

OVERSIGHT OF UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2016

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

Washington, DC.

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m., in room 2237, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Bob Goodlatte, (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Goodlatte, Smith, Chabot, Issa, King, Franks, Gohmert, Jordan, Chaffetz, Gowdy, Labrador, DeSantis, Buck, Ratcliffe, Bishop, Conyers, Lofgren, Jackson Lee, Johnson, Chu, Deutch, Bass, DelBene, Cicilline, and Peters.

Staff Present: (Majority) Shelley Husband, Chief of Staff & Gen-eral Counsel; Branden Ritchie, Deputy Chief of Staff & Chief Coun-sel; Zachary Somers, Parliamentarian & General Counsel; Tracy Short, Counsel, Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Secu-rity; (Minority) Perry Apelbaum, Staff Director & Chief Counsel; Danielle Brown, Parliamentarian & Chief Legislative Counsel; Gary Merson, Chief Immigration Counsel; Maunica Sthanki, Immi-gration Counsel; Micah Bump, Immigration Counsel; and Rosalind Jackson, Professional Staff Member.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Good morning. The Judiciary Committee will come to order, and without objection, the Chair is authorized to de-clare a recess of the Committee at any time. We welcome everyone to this morning’s hearing on Oversight of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and I will begin by recognizing myself for an opening statement.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is the Federal agency that is charged with enforcing the immigration laws of this Nation. Its mission statement is to protect America from the cross- border crime and illegal immigration that threaten national secu-rity and public safety. Its website boasts enforcement of over 400 statues and touts the agency’s focus on ‘‘smart immigration en-forcement and combating the illegal movement of people and goods.’’

This sounds like an agency that is committed to devoting every available resource to vigilantly protect the American public, yet, under the policies of this President, safety and security for Ameri-cans appear to be far less important than the so-called immigration enforcement priorities, which result in hundreds of thousands of

2

unlawfully present and criminal aliens remaining in our commu-nities.

Smart enforcement does not include allowing nearly 370,000 known, convicted, criminal aliens to walk the streets, and it defies common sense to designate removable aliens arrested for serious crimes as low priorities because they have not yet been convicted. They remain threats to the public despite the lack of a conviction.

Any policy that notifies violators in advance that they will not be prosecuted is simply unacceptable. How is that smart enforcement when the offenders know there are no consequences for their un-lawful actions? It only encourages similar conduct by others. ICE cannot combat illegal immigration by refusing to arrest those who have knowingly violated our immigration laws or by releasing over 86,000 convicted criminal aliens over the last 3 years.

These are not policies that protect Americans and help secure our borders. During the last oversight hearing before this Com-mittee on April 14, 2015, Director Saldana testified that ‘‘ICE re-leased 30,558 criminal aliens in fiscal year 2014 and that those aliens had a combined total of 79,059 criminal convictions associ-ated with them.’’

The Committee recently learned from a source that the number of convictions associated with those aliens increased substantially to more than 92,000, and ICE has now admitted that it knew of the additional 13,000 convictions at the time Director Saldana ap-peared before the Committee.

I look forward to hearing the Director’s explanation for the dif-ference between what she told us then and what was known to the agency since the data demonstrates that these criminal aliens pose an even greater threat to public safety than was represented to the Committee.

Specifically, there were 17 percent more convictions for homicide- related offenses, 22 percent more for robbery, 27 percent more for sexual assaults, 17 percent more for aggravated assaults, and 11 percent more convictions for domestic violence assaults. The failure to report this critical information raises serious questions about whether ICE intentionally distorted the true nature of these threats to Congress and the American public.

For the families of those killed by criminal aliens, those like Kate Steinle, Marilyn Farris, Casey Chadwick, Sarah Root, and Josh Wilkerson, assurances of smart enforcement ring hollow, and sadly, the number of victims continues to increase. Also troubling is the fact that despite clear indications that ICE’s enforcement priorities are placing Americans at greater risk, the President’s budget re-quest for fiscal year 2017 asks for $138 million less to detain and remove aliens next year, and worse, last year, ICE gave back $113 million in funds that had been specifically appropriated for deten-tion and removal purposes.

Consistent with this policy of non-enforcement, the President also requested $23 million less for the Fugitive Operations Pro-gram in fiscal year 2017. Fugitive Operations officers must locate and arrest criminal aliens, often in a high-threat environment, after they have been released back into the community by sanc-tuary jurisdictions. With more than 300 sanctuary jurisdictions na-tionwide, there are more than enough removable criminal aliens to

3

warrant the additional $23 million in funding for this important enforcement program.

This Administration’s failure to allocate resources to critical pro-gram areas that directly impact ICE’s ability to keep criminal aliens off the street belies any assertion that public safety is a pri-mary concern. I want to thank Director Saldana for appearing here today. I look forward to your testimony and to your responses to the questions I have outlined, as well as the concerns and ques-tions of other Members of this Committee. Thank you very much.

It is now my pleasure to recognize the Ranking Member of the Committee, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers, for his opening statement.

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Chairman Goodlatte, and I begin by thanking Director Sarah Saldana for her service and appearing be-fore the Committee today. As head of the United States Immigra-tion and Customs Enforcement, Director Saldana has one of the most challenging jobs in government. With limited resources, she must ensure that our immigration statutes are enforced, as well as ensure that this is done in a fair, just, and balanced way.

For that reason, the Department of Homeland Security’s enforce-ment priorities recognized that millions of unauthorized immi-grants have been living and working in the United States for 5 or 10 years or longer. These men and women are parents of United States citizen children; pray at our churches, synagogues, mosques, and other houses of worship; and make significant contributions to our economy. Their removal is not and should not be an enforce-ment priority.

We are here today to, first, examine how our immigration laws are enforced and how this enforcement affects our communities. As we conduct this examination, however, we must keep in mind that many of the challenges faced by ICE and immigrant communities are a result of Congress’s failure to pass comprehensive immigra-tion reform. Yet we are now in the waning days of the current Con-gress, which will soon adjourn without having a justice failure, even though everyday families continue to be separated, and hard-working members of our society are forced to live in the shadows.

Despite all of these challenges, the majority continues to focus exclusively on immigration enforcement that would criminalize en-tire communities. The Republic Presidential nominee advocates policies based on the abhorrent 1950’s program, Operation Wet-back. If enacted and carried out, the ensuing chaos would be a tragedy, rivaling the darkest episodes in America’s history. Com-prehensive immigration reform is the only real option to repair our broken immigration system, in my opinion.

Another issue we should consider at this hearing is the fact that there is a significant increase in the time non-criminal asylum seekers are being detained. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees states that the detention of an asylum seeker is an excep-tional circumstance and should only be used for a limited period of time. I agree, and I also encourage ICE to use its parole authority to release asylum seekers who have passed credible fear screenings or, in the alternative, to consider non-custodial forms of alter-natives to detention.

4

I am pleased to see that the Department of Homeland Security will be conducting a review of private prison policies. I have long been deeply concerned about the use of private prison companies, particularly in light of reports of serious medical neglect, physical abuse, preventable deaths, and other forms of mistreatment. The Department of Justice recently decided to end its relationship with private prison companies, in part because of abusive treatment of inmates.

I encourage ICE to follow suit and end its reliance on private prisons. Finally, yesterday, DHS announced a change in policy for Haitian nationals arriving at our ports of entry. I know this is a complex area of the law with no easy answers, but deporting Hai-tians back to a country still reeling from both a devastating earth-quake and a cholera epidemic caused by the United Nations, their own admission, is concerning and warrants close oversight. I thank the Chairman for this time, and I yield back the balance, if there is any left.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Conyers, and without objection, all of the Members’ opening statements will be made a part of the record.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Bass follows:]

5

6

Mr. GOODLATTE. At this time, we will welcome our distinguished witness, and if you would please rise, I will begin by swearing you in.

Director Saldana, do you solemnly swear that the testimony that you are about to give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and noth-ing but the truth, so help you God?

Thank you very much. Let the record show the witness answered in the affirmative. Director Saldana was sworn in as the Director of the U.S. Immi-

gration and Customs Enforcement on December 23, 2014. Prior to her appointment, she was the United States attorney for the Northern District of Texas. Previously, she served as an assistant district attorney for the Northern District of Texas, also serving as the deputy criminal chief in charge of the district’s Major Fraud and Public Corruption section.

Director Saldana graduated summa cum laude from Texas A&M University and received a J.D. from Southern Methodist Univer-sity. Your entire written statement will be made a part of the record, and we ask that you summarize your testimony in 5 min-utes, and welcome.

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE SARAH SALDANA, DIREC-TOR, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, DE-PARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Ms. SALDANA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Con-yers. If I could have that little bit of time, if Ranking Member Con-yers had any left, I would ask that you indulge me just a little bit over the 5 minutes, if possible.

Distinguished Members of this Committee, I appreciate the op-portunity to discuss with you all the important work of ICE by pro-viding you an overview of our progress over the past year, since the last time that I appeared before this distinguished Committee, as well as some challenges, which we continue to address.

There are many Americans who are not familiar with the full ambit of what ICE does to promote homeland security and to pro-tect our communities. An average day, and I have got a banner with this information to remind me just exactly what our agency does; in the average day in the life of an ICE special agent, an offi-cer, or attorney, results in the arrest of four human or sex traf-fickers—this is every day—7 child predators, 279 criminal immi-grants, and the removal of 645 individuals.

Each day, personnel from ICE initiate 8 new sensitive technology investigations, block 3,055 malware attacks, and forensically proc-ess more than 17 terabytes—I have no idea what that is, but I think it is a lot—of data. I have committed significant time and en-ergy to increase engagement with the numerous stakeholders through our communities.

I think everyone here would agree that it is important for those of us who serve in the Federal Government for the American pub-lic, we have got to have collective partnerships with local law en-forcement agencies, elected officials, professional groups, and non- governmental organizations, as well as the citizens of those com-munities.

7

Another one of my goals is to ensure that each one of our employ-ees has a voice, is mentored, feels empowered, and is recognized for his or her contributions to the agency and our mission. I believe this year’s initial Federal employee survey results, which were just announced by the Office of Personnel Management on Monday, demonstrate our employee engagement is working. This is one of the commitments I made when I was nominated, and I was ques-tioned about, how are we going to get ICE out of the cellar in terms of employee engagement?

We had an 11 percent increase, an 11 percent increase in global employee satisfaction. ICE-wide results exceeded last year’s on each and every, I repeat, each and every question in the survey, and we had a 6 percent overall increase in participation in the sur-vey. I am very proud of this. Perhaps the lesser known work of ICE is how we strive to protect our Nation’s homeland security.

Under the visa security program, which I have testified about be-fore, ICE agents are assigned to diplomatic posts all over the world. ICE is the second largest contributor of Federal agents to the Joint Terrorism Task Forces across the country, led by the FBI. We support and complement counter-terrorism investigations with ICE’s unique immigration and trade-based authorities, and we are instrumental in the investigations of events such as we saw just this past weekend. We also perform critical work combating human smuggling, trafficking, child exploitation, and we have a tremen-dous program in the HERO program, which involves wounded war-riors who assist us in our child exploitation cases.

To address the challenges of jurisdictions which have lessened their cooperation with ICE over the years, we implemented last year the Priority Enforcement Program. We got the forms out and started this program last summer. We have had about a year under our belt, and we have conducted a nationwide effort to bring jurisdictions, which were not previously operating with our detain-ers, to do so. Over the past year, we have also increased our en-gagement with recalcitrant countries, and I will tell you I, person-ally, have sent 125 letters to foreign leaders.

I have met with the ambassadors of Guinea and China to work on resolution of some of these blocking points that we have in repa-triating others to their county. Our people face, as you said, Chair-man, a very tremendous challenge. We have people who enter the country and choose to do harm to others. We have ever-evolving, every day, our law from our immigration and Federal courts, changes one after the other; local law sometimes conflict with ours; recalcitrant countries; and then we have this tremendous influx of families and children, who are fleeing violent conditions in their own countries.

A lesser workforce would bend, maybe even break, but not at ICE. We continue to focus on these issues to try to get some resolu-tion. With respect to the private detention issue, Ranking Member Conyers, if you should have questions for me, I am certainly happy to go into detail about that. You know, of course, that Secretary Johnson has asked his advisory committee to look at this issue with respect to our detention centers.

I will say, and I think I have visited with many people, I think I may have a date coming up for you, sir, about the specifics of

8

this, but we have apples and oranges in the Bureau of Prisons, a punitive system as opposed to our administrative, civil system we have at ICE.

Finally, I would like to say there are two legislative priorities that I will continue to push until the day they turn the lights off on me in January. One of them is an equitable pay, a reform sys-tem for our officers. They need to be paid, in terms of premium pay, equitably, as compared to other Federal employees.

This is a legislative priority for our agency. It is a legislative pri-ority for me; same with respect to authorization. Mr. Chairman, I think I have mentioned this to you personally. ICE needs to be au-thorized. Thank you so much, and I look forward to your questions.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Saldana follows:]

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Director. We will now proceed under the 5-minute rule with questions, and I will begin by recognizing myself. A report by the GAO last year found that immigration judges have granted asylum to 3,709 aliens whose asylum claims were prepared by others who were convicted of immigration fraud. Many of the aliens were involved in the fraud, and investigators stated that most of the aliens had not suffered persecution. None of those cases have been reopened, according to the Department of Justice. What action have you taken to investigate these cases?

Ms. SALDANA. Are you talking about the IG’s enforcement [in-audible]?

Mr. GOODLATTE. No, I am talking about a report by the General Accounting Office about aliens who made asylum claims and were assisted in making those claims by individuals who were convicted of immigration fraud.

Ms. SALDANA. Yes, obviously fraud is an area that we are [in-audible]. I will tell you, Chairman, that both the Office of General Counsel and Homeland Security and our almost 900-plus attorneys within Immigrations and Customs Enforcement——

Mr. CONYERS. Pull your mic up a little closer, please. Mr. GOODLATTE. Turn it on. Ms. SALDANA [continuing]. Have had a tremendous—thank you,

sir. I have focused their efforts on detection of fraud, and we will obviously focus on these 3,000, in particular. We believe that——

Mr. GOODLATTE. My question was, what action have you taken to investigate those cases?

Ms. SALDANA. In those cases that we have reviewed, we have opened matters in order to take a look at them and see the facts and circumstances of each case. We will look at each one of those.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Have you instructed your ICE attorneys to re-view those cases and file motions to reopen those where fraud is suspected?

Ms. SALDANA. Those, sir, and every other, because there are more than those, in which we believe there may be a fraud aspect that were parts of ongoing investigations.

Mr. GOODLATTE. If your answer is yes, then in how many of how those cases were motions filed? There are 3,709 cases. In how many of those have your ICE attorneys filed motions to revoke or bring into question whether those grants of asylum were legiti-mate?

Ms. SALDANA. I do not have that number directly in front of me, but I certainly can get that to you promptly.

Mr. GOODLATTE. How quickly can you get it to us? Ms. SALDANA. Tomorrow? Mr. GOODLATTE. That would be wonderful. Have any of the asy-

lum grants been rescinded by a judge? Add that to your list of questions. On August 29, Secretary Johnson directed the Homeland Security Advisory Council to evaluate whether ICE’s private deten-tion operation should continue. Would not ending the use of such facilities adversely impact ICE’s ability to detain removable aliens, including criminals?

Ms. SALDANA. It would pretty much turn our system upside down, sir, because we are almost completely contractor-run, with

23

respect to our detention facilities. We would have to build detention centers. We would have to hire staff.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Or, conversely, would you not be forced to re-lease criminal aliens that would otherwise be detained?

Ms. SALDANA. We will not be releasing any criminal aliens. We have been directed specifically by the Secretary that we cannot do that.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Congress has mandated that ICE maintain at least 34,000 detention beds. Could you meet that statutory man-date without private detention facilities?

Ms. SALDANA. No. Mr. GOODLATTE. And last year you told the Committee that ICE

released over 30,000 in fiscal year 2014, who had a total of 79,059 criminal convictions. Later, we learned that we now have more than 92,000 convictions, 13,000 more than originally reported. ICE was aware of this larger number before your testimony last April, April of 2015. Why was it not reported to the Committee that the number was higher then?

Ms. SALDANA. In April, sir? Mr. GOODLATTE. Yes. Ms. SALDANA. Chairman, I saw your letter regarding this in-

quiry, and I take very seriously these concerns you have. Let me urge you to consider we cannot press a button for data to be spewed out, particularly with respect to this criminal release data you wanted, that says, as of March 23rd, 2014, these are the num-ber of criminal convictions that apply to releases that we have had. It is not a pressing of the button. The information we provided you was as of March 23, 2015, and that number could very well and does, as you know now, increase when you run the data again be-cause, in the interim, there may be additional convictions. What we did——

Mr. GOODLATTE. Let me ask you this then. Has ICE rearrested any of these aliens?

Ms. SALDANA. I have to believe so. Yes, but I cannot give you a number right now, Chairman.

Mr. GOODLATTE. How soon could you give us a number? Ms. SALDANA. That I will have to go back and see. These are es-

sentially manual searches when we do something like that on a special inquiry like this.

Mr. GOODLATTE. ICE data shows that one or more aliens with terrorism convictions were released from ICE custody in fiscal year 2015 under the Supreme Court’s Zadvydas decision. What action did you take in those cases to recommend that Secretary Johnson send notice to the State Department to invoke visa sanctions against those recalcitrant countries under INA Section 243D?

In other words, you released people because of that Supreme Court decision onto our streets. It is almost always because other countries have refused to take back people that we have attempted to deport, but we have a process whereby visa sanctions can be im-posed on those countries. Did Secretary Johnson send notice to the Department of State to invoke visa sanctions against any of the re-calcitrant countries that refused to take back individuals, particu-larly individuals who were released who have terrorism convic-tions, of all things? What is being done to make sure that the ter-

24

rorists in our custody that should be deported, are indeed, deported to their home country?

Ms. SALDANA. Even when we are required to release, Chairman, people with criminal records, including concerns about terrorism under the Zadvydas decision, we do not just put them on the street. We do release them, because we are required to, under conditions: reporting conditions, perhaps even a monitor. With respect to the visa sanctions issue, I am not aware of that having been exercised once to date, although I know that the Secretary has under consid-eration doing so, with respect to one or more of these countries.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I have seen no evidence that he has done that, and there are provisions that authorize mandatory detention for terrorist aliens in the Immigration and Nationality Act, Section 236A, and 8 Code of Federal Regulations 24114. What actions did you take, or the Secretary take, to invoke those provisions to main-tain custody of those terrorists?

Ms. SALDANA. We have at least done so in one case. We do not release someone who we have the ability to detain under the man-datory detention provisions. I will assure you that.

Mr. GOODLATTE. But to your knowledge, Secretary Johnson has never sent a notice to the Department of State to invoke visa sanc-tions against any country that refuses to take back their own citi-zens who are required, by our laws, to be sent out of this country?

Ms. SALDANA. Sir, he has done so once that I am aware of. I do not know that we have heard from the Department of State.

Mr. GOODLATTE. How recently was that? Ms. SALDANA. Well, I know he had it under consideration. It has

been whispered in my ear that that letter may not have gone out yet, but I know he is at least considering it seriously in respect to— remind me of the country.

VOICE. Gambia. Ms. SALDANA. Gambia. Mr. GOODLATTE. Well, we are into the last months of this Presi-

dency and the last months of the Secretary’s service. This problem is not a new one. It has been going on preceding this Administra-tion. Do not you think it is time that the Administration stepped up and started enforcing our laws with regard to countries that do not cooperate with us?

Ms. SALDANA. I know that the Secretary takes that very seri-ously, and as I say, he is taking under consideration this, in par-ticular with this one country. There well may be more.

Mr. GOODLATTE. My time is expired. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers, for his questions.

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you for being here today. I want to talk about the increase in Haitians entering the United States through the southwest border. As a result, the De-partment of Homeland Security announced today a change in policy toward Haitian asylum seekers entering the country at the south-ern border, and all Haitians, not just those convicted of serious crimes or posing a national security threat, will be subject to re-moval.

I understand that, to accomplish this at the southwest border, Haitians will be detained and placed in expedited removal pro-ceedings, whereas previously, they were granted parole. What

25

guarantees do we have that, in the aftermath of the earthquake and cholera epidemics, the Haitian Government will issue travel documents for significantly increased numbers of Haitian remov-als?

Ms. SALDANA. We are in conversation with the Haitian officials. The Secretary did announce that change today, but let me assure you, Mr. Conyers, that Haitians are not going to be treated any dif-ferently from anyone else. If they have an asylum, a fear, asylum claim, or claim to be a refugee, we will consider those claims, along with everything else.

I think you know that, right now, the emergency situation that I am aware of is actually on a California border with some 4,000 Haitians there. I just was in the Central American region and heard from a number of those countries, El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala, that they are aware of, with their communications with their fellow governments in South and Central America, of 40,000 Haitians who are en route to the United States.

This is why the Secretary made a decision, based on facts that he has reviewed, that the conditions in Haiti at least are improved enough for us to change the policy back to treating Haitians just like everyone else, and that includes affording them the rights and privileges that our system provides refugees and asylees.

Mr. CONYERS. Well, that is encouraging. Let me turn now to the November 2014 priorities memo directed to the Department of Homeland Security agents and officers to prioritize the immigra-tion enforcement of individuals with serious criminal offenses. Can you talk to us about ICE’s efforts to locate, detain, and deport indi-viduals with a criminal history?

Ms. SALDANA. Yes, sir, I am happy to. Obviously one of those other things that we are focused on, who out there, fugitive-wise, do we need to focus on as a priority, because we cannot get to ev-erybody, but as a priority, to focus on those folks who are out in the community that we know need to be apprehended and returned to their countries?

We have a very strong unit that works on only fugitives. They review records. They prioritize those fugitives based on the nature of their crimes, how long ago their crimes occurred, and they are out there, on a constant and daily basis, in the early hours of the morning, trying to find folks where we have at least information on where we can encounter them and take them back.

We have had quite a bit of success in that regard, and we also have operations that occur on a focused basis, like Operation Bor-der Resolve earlier this year, where we are trying to locate those folks that are fugitives and have escaped our system, and we need to get them back.

Mr. CONYERS. Let me tell you that we have a number of other questions that I am going to send you, and you can respond in writing, and we will incorporate them in the record.

Ms. SALDANA. Yes, sir. Mr. CONYERS. I think that would be the easiest way, with me

with only 15 seconds left, to begin this discussion. I think we need to become more familiar with the details of the strategies that you are using, and I want to encourage you to help us locate and detain and deport those individuals with a criminal history.

26

Ms. SALDANA. Yes, sir. Again, one of the Secretary’s priorities, and we are doing that.

Mr. CONYERS. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes

the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Smith, for 5 minutes. Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I am going to use my question time

to make a statement because, after 8 years of asking Obama ad-ministration officials why they refuse to enforce their immigration laws, I am confident that the Committee still will not receive satis-factory answers today. The President’s immigration policies con-tinue to put innocent Americans at risk. The Administration has ignored laws, failed to enforce laws, undermined laws, and uncon-stitutionally changed immigration laws.

Among these dangerous policies is the President’s unconstitu-tional Executive Amnesty, which requires Immigration and Cus-toms Enforcement officials to release criminal immigrants into our neighborhoods where, inevitably, they commit additional crimes. Over the last 3 years, ICE has released 86,000 criminal immigrants into our communities. They have been convicted of over 230,000 crimes, which include homicide, aggravated assault, sexual assault, kidnapping, driving under the influence, and other serious crimes. Over 30 percent will be arrested again for killing or injuring more innocent Americans.

The Administration’s intentional release of criminal immigrants amounts to the largest jailbreak in American history, and everyday Americans across the country are paying a steep price. Last year, ICE deported a total of 235,000 illegal immigrants, the lowest num-ber in 10 years. This was only 2 percent of the 11 million illegal immigrants in the country, and of these, only about 70,000 were in-terior removals. Under the current Administration, ICE has started counting turn-backs at the border as traditional interior removals in an attempt to pad their deportation figures.

Previous Presidents did not count turn backs as deportations, but then no President has done so little to enforce immigration laws. Investigation of immigrants who overstay their visas has dis-appeared. At least 40 percent of more than the 11 million illegal immigrants in the country entered legally and overstayed their visas, yet ICE only deported 2,456 visa over stayers in 2015. This is less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the total number of visa over stayers.

In addition, the Administration has done nothing to hold any of the 300 sanctuary cities accountable. These local governments vio-late Federal law when they refuse to cooperate with Federal immi-gration authorities in the apprehension and deportation of illegal immigrants. Congress mandated the cooperation of local officials in an immigration enforcement bill in 1996. I know. I wrote the law.

Tragically, the number of sanctuary cities has exploded under the Obama administration. During testimony at our last oversight hearing, Director Saldana could not name a single instance in which ICE tried to prevent a jurisdiction from becoming a sanc-tuary for criminal immigrants. The lawlessness of these sanctuary jurisdictions has had disastrous consequences.

Last year Juan Francisco Lopez Sanchez, a five-time deported ca-reer felon, shot and killed Katherine Steinle. Lopez Sanchez was

27

set free to prey on innocent Americans like Ms. Steinle because of San Francisco’s sanctuary law. Unfortunately, similar tragedies have occurred across the country as a result of these laws, so add these casualties to the current list of Americans who have become victims because of President Obama’s immigration policies. These facts and figures demonstrate that enforcement of our immigration laws runs contrary to the Obama administration’s Amnesty Agen-da. Until the immigration policies of this Administration are over-turned, illegal immigrants will continue to victimize innocent Americans. Mr. Chairman, I have a minute remaining, and I will yield that back to you for questions.

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair thanks the gentleman. Director, I want to follow up on the statement that Mr. Smith made and put it in the context of what Mr. Conyers observed, and that is that your organization operates with limited resources, and yet, in fiscal year 2015, you gave back to the Department of Homeland Security $113 million in funds that were specifically appropriated for deten-tion and removal. Why did you give this money back, given the problems that were just cited by Mr. Smith and the fact, as Mr. Conyers noted, you have limited resources to begin with?

Ms. SALDANA. Absolutely, sir. This whole issue of how we man-age funds for specific categories, in this case, beds, that is ex-tremely important to me and to our folks in the enforcement and removal area, as it is, obviously, to you. It is very difficult for us to anticipate the number of people coming across the border from 1 year to the next. It goes up, and it goes down even over the course of——

Mr. GOODLATTE. I understand that, but Mr. Smith noted that there are over 250,000 individuals in this country who are not law-fully present in the country and have committed crimes in the country, so that number continues to rise, and therefore, while it may be difficult to predict how many people are coming across the border, it is not difficult to know that you have got 250,000 that are already here who should not be there, and therefore, should be, until they are deported, in detention facilities or using resources to detain them and then remove them.

Ms. SALDANA. And we are, sir. That is exactly what we are trying to do. This enforcement priority approach that you have—you and I disagree on as to its wisdom—focuses not on the release of crimi-nal aliens, but on the apprehension and removal of criminal aliens. Our statistics alone, with respect to the beds, those are filled by people with one or more convictions that we are preparing to re-move from the country.

I think the last number I saw was something like 84 percent fit into our top priority, so we manage these beds as best as we can. Last year, we had some beds that were not filled. This year, we have the opposite problem. We have more people in beds than we can afford, but we are working very hard to manage that problem through the end of the fiscal year.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I would recommend that, when you have limited resources, and you have a huge problem that is not addressed, you not return money back that could be used to keep Americans safer than they are right now. At this time it is my pleasure to recognize the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Lofgren, for 5 minutes.

28

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This hearing, as we know, comes just days after the bombing and attempted bombing in New York and New Jersey. The alleged perpetrator, Ahmad Khan Rahami, has, we are very thankful, been arrested. The law enforcement investigation is ongoing, and I know that you cannot comment on that because it is an ongoing investigation. I would note that there is a classified briefing for Members of Congress this afternoon. I certainly intend to attend that, but I just think it is important to say what the case is and the facts that are currently known.

It is clear that the facts, as we know them, indicate this is a case about terrorism, radicalization, national intelligence, law enforce-ment, but it cannot be about immigration vetting because Ahmad Khan Rahami came to the United States as a child, and how you would vet a 7-year-old, it just does not make any sense. He came. His father was a small businessman. In fact, his father contacted the FBI 2 years ago to express concern about his son, and I hope to find out, in the classified briefing, why the FBI kind of blew that off, but we will find out.

I hope that people around America will not conflate that situa-tion with the Syrian refugee situation that is unfolding. We know that DHS has a dedicated office to counter violent extremism, and I hope to hear more about your efforts in that regard as time goes on, but I would just note, you know, looking at the record of refu-gees from Afghanistan, there were virtually no refugees from Af-ghanistan until 1980 in the United States, and refugees came into the United States at about 2,000 to 4,000 a year until 1990.

It is interesting, going back to the record, there was a congres-sional task force on Afghanistan. Some of our colleagues, Dana Rohrabacher, who I serve on the Science Committee with, was a Member of that Committee; and former Members like Don Ritter, a Republican from Pennsylvania; and Lagomarsino, a Republican from California, were on that. It was a bi-partisan Committee.

Charlie Wilson was on that, and one of the things that they said was that the United States had a moral obligation to the people of Afghanistan because of the pivotal role they had played in defeat-ing the Red Army at a time when Communism was on the march around the globe, so I think, as we look at this situation and this individual who came to the U.S. as a little boy, it is important to remember that the refugees were admitted as part of the fight against Communism at that time.

Now, I want to turn a little bit to detention in ICE. I have men-tioned in the past my concern about for-profit, private detention fa-cilities. I am glad that the Department is looking at that. I realize the change cannot happen overnight, but I do believe that, for the same reasons, the Department of Justice has decided to go in a dif-ferent direction, namely that private facilities are more expensive; they are less accountable; they fail to meet constitutional stand-ards. I am hopeful that we will be in a position to move in a dif-ferent direction in ICE, just as the DOJ has, after that report is received in a few months.

Having said that, I continue to be concerned about the situation of women and children in custody. We know that mothers and chil-dren have been on a hunger strike at the facility at Burkes, and

29

I am concerned and wondering why we could not provide a mon-itored release for those women and their children.

Obviously, these are individuals who are appealing an adverse decision. They are in a different posture than the women and chil-dren in the Texas facilities, and yet some of those little children have been essentially been in jail for over a year. You know 5-, 6- year-old kids. That really is not in keeping with American stand-ards, and I am wondering, Director, if it is possible to take a look at, what forms of accountability, whether it is bond, whether it is ankle monitoring, whether it is placement in a facility that is more home-like and less traumatizing for children, could be looked at for this population of mothers and children?

Ms. SALDANA. Congresswoman, I share your concern. This is not the business we were in not that long ago. We were not in the busi-ness of family and children. This is a phenomenon that has in-creased over the years as problems have occurred south of our bor-ders, but I do take very seriously how long we detain families.

As you know, the average length of stay is now in the teens, with respect to our family facilities overall. I am familiar with the cases that you are referring to with respect to longer-term detentions. I will say that, while I cannot comment on a specific case, I am happy to cover that with you to the extent that we can and are al-lowed to, especially where we have a waiver of privacy, but gen-erally speaking, the folks we are talking about are subject to man-datory detention outlined here in this statute, and when they are losing their appeals and we are preparing to remove them, we do not detain them for the purposes of punishing them——

Ms. LOFGREN. No, I understand that. I will follow up with you off agenda because there are provisions in the law that would allow them to be held in an accountable fashion. I want to turn now, since I do not have a lot of time left, to the issue of solitary confine-ment in civil immigration proceedings. We have had a lot of infor-mation about the use of solitary confinement in America, I mean, whether it is in criminal detention, or juvenile detention, and un-fortunately, in civil detentions. Solitary confinement does tremen-dous damage to people.

The psychologists tell us it can actually make a person mentally ill, to be in solitary confinement for an extended period of time. Now, I have come across cases, and we have been in communica-tion with your department, about the use of solitary confinement for young people that seem frivolous to me and, in fact, have been changed. I understand the President has directed departments to end their practice of restrictive housing, and the Department was required to submit to the White House, by September 1st, a report on the use of solitary confinement. Do you know when that report will be made public?

Ms. SALDANA. I think it will be any day now. I do not know ex-actly where it is, but I have been advised, and we have kept track of—I think it will maybe even be early next week, before week’s end next week. That is my best estimate right now.

Ms. LOFGREN. All right. I have many other questions, but I see, Mr. Chairman, that my time has expired, and so I will yield back.

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair thanks the gentlewoman and recog-nizes the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. King, for 5 minutes.

30

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I appre-ciate this hearing and statement and opening remarks, and I would like to associate myself this morning, especially, with that of Mr. Smith from Texas because I think it is important, in that we have been at this for almost 8 years, and the numbers do not look as discouraging, perhaps, as they did a year ago, but there is not hope on the horizon either.

And I look at the numbers that Mr. Smith has rolled out, and I did not hear them disputed, but 86,000 criminal aliens released onto our streets, and I think of the years that we worked this, and I remember testimony that came here before this Committee for years and shortly after I first arrived in this Congress, and it would be the testimony of how many people died in the desert try-ing to get into America. Do you have any of that data in your mem-ory to give us an idea, a scope of how many died in the desert try-ing to get into America?

Ms. SALDANA. Oh my goodness, sir. I have heard of those trage-dies, but I do not have that at my fingertips.

Mr. KING. Well, I remember the witnesses that came in and tes-tified, and we saw numbers, just the Arizona Desert, in those years, that would say 200, 250. Then the next year, it went up. We saw numbers that went over 400 a year just in the Arizona Desert. Brooks County, Texas has a lot as well, and I began to think about that, and I began to think about how many Americans died at the hands of those who made it through, and we have done at least two GAO studies on that in my time here in this Congress. Apples to apples is a hard thing to arrive at.

It is very difficult to unravel this, but I have met a number of the people, and it is heartbreaking to me to think of the many peo-ple who are suffering a loss of a loved one because we did not en-force the law, and when I look through this list of those that have been released by ICE, and I see, in this particular list I looked at a little bit ago, a 101 released who had committed homicide, and how many others along the way?

What is the price to Americans? And so I recall Donald Trump highlighting some of the people in his statement before the conven-tion in Cleveland, and I noticed that, last week, he made a state-ment that there are thousands of Americans that are grieving be-cause they have lost a loved one at the hands of someone, whom had been encountered by law enforcement in America, including ICE, and been released onto our streets. Would you agree with that statement?

Ms. SALDANA. That there are thousands? Mr. KING. Yes, thousands of people who are suffering the loss of

a loved one. Ms. SALDANA. I do not have the exact number, but I do not dis-

agree with you, sir. And if I may, Congressman, let me tell you, I am a prosecutor. I come to this job as a prosecutor. I am used to trying to keep the community safe, and I have not discontinued that in this job. I am trying to make the most of out of the money we have. I told you earlier that 84 percent of people——

Mr. KING. I am sorry to interrupt, but the clock is ticking on me, and I do not dispute what you have said, but you have to get your orders from on high, and so if this is a matter of conscience, then

31

I would ask you now, have you come before this Congress and told us what you needed for resources in order to enforce the law fully 100 percent? What do you need for officers? What do you need for prosecutors? What do you need for judges? What do you need for prison beds?

I have never seen this Administration say we want to enforce 100 percent of the law. The signal we get looking at this data is that this President has given orders on high to release these crimi-nals onto the streets of America, and if that is egregious to you, why have we not heard you push back against the President? And why have we not heard that request?

Ms. SALDANA. I will have to push back against the facts that you are asserting, sir. I really have tried to make this clear, but there is no discretion in these releases other than for about one-third of the number you are talking about, so when we continue to repeat that the Administration is releasing people willy-nilly out on the streets who have criminal records—we have talked about the Zadvydas; that is the United Supreme Court. That is not ICE.

Mr. KING. It is going to take a lot longer to get down into this than we actually have here, but I would like to ask you, do you rec-ognize these names? Sarah Root.

Ms. SALDANA. I do. Mr. KING. Brandon Mendoza. Ms. SALDANA. I do. Mr. KING. Dominic Durden. Ms. SALDANA. Yes. Mr. KING. Jazz Shaw. Ms. SALDANA. Yes. Mr. KING. His father, Jamiel. Ms. SALDANA. Yes. Mr. KING. Tessa Tranchant. Tessa Tranchant and Allie

Kunhardt. Ms. SALDANA. Yes, I do. Mr. KING. I am glad that you do. I am thankful that you do, and

we need to remember them. The immigration laws that we have are here to be enforced. If we have to lay out the standard that it is going to be 100 percent, if we have to put the resources out there to do that, this Congress, I believe, and the next Congress will be prepared to do that.

We need to restore the respect for the rule of law. Americans are dying every single day because of our failure to do so and because of turning people lose on the streets that do not return back again, and I see face after face of grieving Americans. They are in the thousands over the time that I have watched this tragedy, and I am glad that you are aware, and you recognize these names, and I appreciate the personal part of this, but we need a fresh start on this immigration law in this country. Thank you very much. I yield back.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. King. Director Saldana, before I recognize the gentlewoman from Texas, I am sure you know that fewer than 10 percent of the criminal immigrants released back into our communities under the Zadvydas case is less than 10 per-cent, so do not try to give the impression that you do not have a

32

choice. You do have a choice on over 90 percent. The gentlewoman from Texas——

Ms. SALDANA. No, sir. That is not correct. Would you like me to give you those numbers exactly for the last——

Mr. GOODLATTE. The less than 10 percent is a figure we got from you.

Ms. SALDANA. That cannot be because I would have signed that letter probably.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Okay. We can come back to this. The gentle-woman from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee, is recognized for her ques-tions.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and let me thank you, Ms. Saldana, for your service to the Na-tion. Thank you for your service as a U.S. attorney and your com-mitment to law enforcement and your compassion and passion in the leadership that you have given.

I take particular offense to the suggestion that a lifelong profes-sional, such as yourself, would, in any way, seek to release individ-uals that should not be released. So first question that I ask, is it your purpose, Ms. Saldana, as the Director of ICE, to release peo-ple without legal authority that are judged criminally and just to release them in the street? Is that your purpose as the Director?

Ms. SALDANA. It is not, Congresswoman. Ms. JACKSON LEE. I am just going to ask a series of questions.

As I do so, let me also take this moment to thank the 19,000 ICE employees every day that are on the frontlines and are assisting and protecting this Nation. We should be grateful for their service. I work with ICE employees. I happen to have my office in the Fed-eral Building in Houston, and I want to acknowledge many of them as they work throughout our community; that, I think, is very im-portant.

I also want to make the point that we are a Nation of laws and a Nation of immigrants. It feels to me that the line of questioning on this panel seems to ignore that this Nation was built on the hard work of immigrants and some who came not willingly. I know that in my history, but I would make the point is that we do better when we work together, and I was at the border when we had the surge of unaccompanied children, and I associate myself, by the way, with the comments of my colleague, Congresswoman Lofgren, as it relates to detention centers, but I will not ask that question.

And I saw the transfer from the border personnel into ICE and the responsibilities that occurred, and I understand what you are saying about not being able to project the numbers that come across regularly. So I want to put that on the record, but I also want to take note that those who are undocumented in this country have dropped under the Obama administration, dropped from 11 million, and it may be continuing to drop.

I also want to make the point that I see nothing in the leader-ship of President Obama or Secretary Johnson to, in any way, to adhere to the illegal releasing of individuals that should not be re-leased. So let me raise these questions. There have been reports, of course, that there were 858 individuals that should not have been naturalized that were. I just want to ask you a yes or no ques-tion. The inspector general has provided two recommendations:

33

that ICE finish uploading into the digital repository the finger-prints it identified; that DHS resolve these cases of naturalized citizens who may have been ineligible. Are you in the process of doing that?

Ms. SALDANA. Yes. Ms. JACKSON LEE. Do you do it willingly? Ms. SALDANA. Of course. Ms. JACKSON LEE. And do you acknowledge 858, I see is the

number, that you deal with, prospectively, millions in this very large country of individuals that come under ICE authority over the years?

Ms. SALDANA. Yes, ma’am. Ms. JACKSON LEE. And so, out of the 858, you are now correcting

that process, and my understanding is that the inspector general is satisfied that you are doing that. Is that correct?

Ms. SALDANA. Yes. Ms. JACKSON LEE. Then let me follow up with this. The majority

has raised questions about the release of individuals with a crimi-nal history. I understand you cannot talk about specific cases, but can you give me general examples of the reasons why an individual might be released from ICE custody? What are the reasons why a judge would grant release from custody?

And in the context of release of individuals with a criminal his-tory, what types of crimes are we talking about? Are these violent felons, individuals with minor traffic offenses mostly, or individuals whose only crime is reentering after deportation, which I know there are many? And according to the data from ICE OPLA, ICE has exercised prosecutorial discretion and declined to deport some individuals with a criminal history. I understand that you cannot discuss that. Can you give examples of the kind of cases that they may be?

Number two, we have had over the last couple of days very tragic incidences in New Jersey, New York, and Minnesota. All initial public reports suggest that Ahmad Khan Rahami, New York, New Jersey; and Dahir Adan, Minnesota, came as young children and completed their entire primary and secondary educations in the United States. This is a collective effort by all of us, Members of Congress, Department of Homeland Security; on this question, do you just have any thoughts as to how ICE can work with other law enforcement agencies to prevent homegrown terrorist acts like this?

But the point I want to make is that the individual actors of the last terrorist incidences of the last 3 days were, in fact, individuals who were here in the United States, although they visited other countries. Can you answer the first one and second one? And I would appreciate it very much. Again, thank you so very much for your service to the Nation.

Ms. SALDANA. Thank you so much, Congresswoman. This is the point that I was making earlier. Every decision we make, and this is why we go about our business in the most appropriate and effi-cient way that we can, given the limited amount of dollars; $6 bil-lion sounds like a lot of money, but when you are talking about the vastness of our country and the immigrants that are in our coun-try, you have to figure out a way to use your discretion to prosecute wisely, with the first emphasis on public safety.

34

So this statue lays out the laws, the regulations with respect to how we make those decisions. On apprehension, there is a section there. There is a section on who we must detain and who we can detain, and then there is a section on bond and who we release on bond. If it is up to us, and often it is not; the court will actually order a release on bond. I want to repeat and advise every Member of this Committee because I want you all to know this important fact: we do not ignore any immigrant who has a final order of re-moval and for whom we have a travel document. That person is going back to their country.

We need those two things, though, so when we are talking about removals and, with respect to this detention issue and the releases, two-thirds of these releases are out of our hands. This is what I was telling Congressman Smith a little while ago. We have Zadvydas, and we have got an immigration court system which has a half a million case backlog, which is going about their business as efficiently as they can, I am sure, but cannot get to everybody. So we will use our discretion to look at all the facts and cir-cumstances of case.

Do they have a serious criminal conviction? If so, how long ago was that conviction? What is the amount of time that they have been in the country? Do they have citizen-born relatives or chil-dren? So many factors that are included in our review of those peo-ple and we make the best decisions we can.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Director Saldana, let me interrupt you because I am looking at your official figures. If these are incorrect, I hope you will correct them by the end of this hearing, but what we have from you is fiscal year 2015, 11 percent, only 11 percent, were Saldana’s cases, that 37 percent, 7,293, were discretionary. You put those individuals back in our communities, where over 30 percent will be rearrested.

Ms. SALDANA. Seven thousand, right. Mr. GOODLATTE. That is correct. That is just in 1 year. Ms. SALDANA. What I was saying—— Ms. JACKSON LEE. Chairman, may I? You are looking at only one

number. You should look at the immigration judge decisions. Mr. GOODLATTE. No, no. I have got that in front of me so the

Zadvydas cases is 11 percent, discretionary 37 percent. Ms. JACKSON LEE. Well, I am going to allow her to do it and I

am going to finish my point. Mr. GOODLATTE. I welcome any correction to her figures before

we finish the hearing though. The gentlewoman’s time has expired and the gentleman from——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Can I yield back just on one comment? I am yielding back, if I might to—I appreciate her answer to my ques-tion. Again, I want to emphasize the discretion and so the DACA young people, who were here in the United States, came in college, is a reputable decision by ICE and others that these individuals do not fall into that priority and are not dangerous. Prosecutorial dis-cretion is within the law in the context of Director Saldana, but thank you so very much. I yield back.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Ms. Jackson Lee, and the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Bishop, is recognized for his question.

35

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Director, for being here today. Thank you for sharing your time.

I was reviewing my materials last night regarding this hearing today, and I came across the core mission of ICE, and I found it interesting, and it is to protect America from the cross-border crime and illegal immigration that threaten national security and public safety. And ICE has been delegated the statutory authority to ar-rest, detain, and remove aliens who are illegally present or have otherwise violated immigration law.

Obviously, this policy, this mission that you have is extremely important to this Nation, and accordingly, you have been delegated substantial enforcement power to fulfill your mission. And I noted earlier that you indicated that you came into this job with a pros-ecutor’s state of mind. That is how you think of your job, and I ap-preciate the fact that you do that because I think you recognize that we are a Nation of laws and that our responsibility is to en-force the law.

ICE has identified 23 jurisdictions that refuse to accept detain-ers. We know them as sanctuary cities. They refuse to accept de-tainers or requests for notification for aliens in their custody charged with State offenses. Does the existence of sanctuary cities threaten your ability to fulfill the mission that was just stated?

Ms. SALDANA. I am sorry. As I said in my opening statement, sir, we have to have the cooperation of local law enforcement in going about our job because they are inclined to encounter these folks first than we are. So the 23 that you are talking about, actually, that was my effort, as the manager of this agency, to try to identify what jurisdictions are having the most negative impact on our abil-ity to get to prisoners transferred to us who have criminal records or otherwise meet the priorities, and so identified 25 at the time. We have worked incredibly hard, and I say we. I cannot take the credit. I am going to have to give some to the Secretary and to the deputy.

Mr. BISHOP. Director, I am low on time. So sorry, we have 5 min-utes, and I do not mean to interrupt you, but my concern is that, as a former prosecutor, I am just wondering how you can continue to square the existence of sanctuary cities with the duty of a pros-ecutor to ensure justice and the constitutional duty of the state of equal protection of law.

It is specifically stated in the 14th Amendment, so I know that you have got all this great team in place, but it just seems to me that the policy of sanctuary cities prevents you from your core mis-sion, and that is my concern. That is my concern, but it is also the concern of the folks that I represent and the constituents that I represent.

I am from a border city, Detroit. It is not mentioned in this list, by the way, but I have talked agents, and they do tell me that they have a policy of sanctuary cities, and I am sure that exists in a lot of them. That troubles me to think that I live in an area, a border city, and it has a sanctuary city policy. It worries me for my con-stituents, but it also worries me for one of your core objectives, which is to represent ICE officers and to protect ICE officers, and I am concerned that the existence of sanctuary cities puts your offi-cers at risk, along with the citizens. It puts your officers at risk.

36

I do not know how that cannot be an issue with your office and with those officers on the street who really their hands are tied.

Ms. SALDANA. And I think I mentioned earlier, I worked with 100 counties in my U.S. attorney job. I had 100 different sheriffs and other law enforcement officials I had to work with. These cities that you are talking about, sir, have their own laws; either the State passes them or there is a local ordinance over which I have no control. All I can do is to use my best persuasive powers to work with them to try to bring them back to table.

The fact that we have 17 who are working with us of the 25 that I had on that list and 3 more that are beginning to work with us, it is a result of very hard work on the part of all of us at ICE. So I will continue to do that. I am not going to give up on anybody.

Mr. BISHOP. I appreciate that. I know my time is up, but I want to ask one more question. If you are running the shop and you have decided that—you have looked at this, and I know that you have had experience here, obviously, would you continue the policy of sanctuary cities?

Ms. SALDANA. ICE does not have a policy of sanctuary cities. Mr. BISHOP. You are part of the enforcement process. Obviously,

you were working in the environment of these cities where sanc-tuary cities exist, so you are a critical part of this process of en-forcement of our laws.

Ms. SALDANA. And I am trying to gain back the trust of those communities who have given up on working with us. I will not give up on them.

Mr. BISHOP. I take that as you—— Ms. SALDANA. I want to work with every local law enforcement

agency there is. Mr. BISHOP. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. Mr. GOODLATTE. The gentleman yields back. The Chair will now

recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Johnson. Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. America has a history

of reliance on free and cheap labor to create wealth for owners of the means of production in this country. There has been a con-certed effort throughout the years to attract undocumented workers from south of the border who provide cheap and reliable labor.

At the same time, America has prosecuted a drug war south of the border, also here in America, in the inner cities. It has been a complete failure here in America, and it is a complete failure, the drug war, south of the border. It has resulted in the destabilization of governments and fostered armed, violent gangs vying for control of the drug trade. The more violent the drug war becomes, the greater the profits for the most violent drug gangs, who can eradi-cate their competition.

Who gets caught in the middle? The innocent citizens in Central and South America. The top three most violent cities, due to crimi-nal violence in the world, are located just south of our borders: Venezuela, Honduras, El Salvador, and the fourth is in Mexico. It has produced a humanitarian crisis of families, unaccompanied mi-nors making their way from Central America or through Central America, from Central America, through Central America, through Mexico, up to the U.S. border.

37

Now this confluence of manmade consequences, intentional, fore-seeable consequences comes at a time where this Congress con-tinues to enforce a 34,000-bed mandate on your agency. In other words, we have created a private prison industrial complex that feasts on this confluence of foreseeable consequences. With respect to the 34,000-bed mandate, what is your daily average occupancy?

Ms. SALDANA. Well, the last time I checked in the last couple of days, we were a little bit over 34,000, something like 34,021, some-thing in that neighborhood.

Mr. JOHNSON. And you generally keep the 34,000-bed require-ment afield. Is that correct? You generally?

Ms. SALDANA. Yes, generally speaking. Let me just be sure I am understood on this point. We do not put a person in a bed because we have some kind of a quota. We put a person in detention be-cause it is necessary to have them in detention in the process of removing them from this country, so my effort is not——

Mr. JOHNSON. Okay, and I know you have been interrupted quite a lot, and I have got to follow suit, too, because I want to get my questions in. The 34,000-bed mandate, does it include women and children humanitarian cases coming out of Central America to es-cape the drug violence?

Ms. SALDANA. The requirement is not to have those beds filled. It is to have those beds available, and it——

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, but those beds are available for that group of people; is it not true?

Ms. SALDANA. There is a group of that, a small group, compara-tively speaking, that are families, women, and children.

Mr. JOHNSON. And also, for things like the targets of Operation Border Guardian, Central American families with children live, those raids result in people filling those 34,000 beds. Is that not correct?

Ms. SALDANA. I will have to disagree with the use of the word ‘‘raids.’’ These are focused operations where we have gone through a file and identified people who have final orders of removal and are ready to be removed.

Mr. JOHNSON. Now, these include children who have been brought to this country by their parents at an early age. They did not give consent. They just came with their parents. They are inno-cent, but yet they get swept up in operations like Operation Board-er Guardian and they get put into the private prison industrial complex to fill the 34,000-bed mandate. Is that correct?

Ms. SALDANA. No, children are not put into detention. They are turned over to our Department of Health and Human Services, sep-arate.

Mr. JOHNSON. So the children and not part of the 34,000-bed mandate?

Ms. SALDANA. Children, I am talking about people under 18 years of age. They are turned over. The system, with respect to kids, is to turn them over to Health and Human Services, who finds a suitable placement outside of the detention system.

Mr. JOHNSON. But if they are in the detention system, they are part of the 34,000-bed mandate. True or false?

Mr. GOODLATTE. The gentleman is out of time, but you may an-swer the question. You may answer it, Director, if you would like.

38

Ms. SALDANA. Thank you. What you are talking about is children who are with their parent, typically a woman. I think the 34,000 is a separate number. That is adults. We are allocated money for families and children, so no, the 34,000 you are talking about is families, and those we have in the two institutions in Texas and Burke’s facility, about 100 beds, maybe a little less, in Pennsyl-vania.

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. GOODLATTE. The gentleman from Georgia yields back. The

Chair will now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Issa. Mr. ISSA. The gentleman from Ohio would be better to take first. Mr. GOODLATTE. The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Chabot. Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Madame Di-

rector, first of all, our colleague from Michigan, Mr. Bishop, asked a couple of questions you answered, but there is one I did not hear an answer for, and I would like to ask that again, if I could. He said that, when these sanctuary cities or jurisdictions, in some cases, because some of them are not cities; they are counties and things, but when they fail to honor ICE detainers, he asked you, well, would not that put your officers and the people they are try-ing to, in some cases, detain or arrest, does not that put them at risk as well?

Ms. SALDANA. I have testified before. Yes, sir. That is one of my concerns about not having this cooperative relationship is we do have to go out in the early morning hours in order to find people, unfortunately, many times, in their homes.

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. I just did not hear the answer to that. And I guess, obviously, because, if the local community has them, they have got them arrested. They have already made sure they do not have a weapon. They have patted them down. They are safe there. As you said, in the early morning hours, your officer has to go out and pick them up again, they are at risk. They might now have a gun. It might be dark out. You do not know what is going on, so your officer is at risk, and the person they are trying to de-tain could also be at additional risk. So I guess the point is that these sanctuary cities are putting people on both sides at risk by having this policy.

Ms. SALDANA. And fortunately, there is some good news in this area, and that is what I was telling about, having turned at least the minds and hearts of at least 17 of those top-25 communities. So yes, no, that is one of the points we make with respect to those communities is help us here because these are law enforcement of-ficers who are facing additional risks.

Mr. CHABOT. And I think the public has got the right to know, at least, what are some of the larger cities that we are talking about that are sanctuary cities?

Ms. SALDANA. I think we provided that. I think one of the con-gressmen mentioned San Francisco.

Mr. CHABOT. San Francisco; Bolder, Colorado; Philadelphia. Ms. SALDANA. I can provide you a list, sir. I think we have pro-

vided it to the appropriations folks. Mr. CHABOT. I think of your support staff is nodding in the af-

firmative. Ms. SALDANA. Boulder.

39

Mr. CHABOT. Boulder is one of the larger. Ms. SALDANA. It may well be. Mr. CHABOT. Okay, because, I mean, I think this is something

that is a national issue. I think the public has the right to know who some of these cities are that are abusing the process, and okay, I have got a couple other questions. Let me move on.

Giving the recidivism rate for criminal aliens, it is difficult to un-derstand why aliens, who are repeat offenders of crimes, are far too often released back into our communities. How does ICE address the increased danger posed to our citizens, and what steps is ICE or any other governmental agencies taken to decrease the chance that an alien will reoffend?

Ms. SALDANA. Well, public safety, as I said earlier, is my primary concern. This is top of our minds. I have personally worked with our field office directors in determinations of prosecutorial discre-tion, and in those areas, the 37 percent of criminal releases that we have had that are at our discretion, I want to make sure that they are looking at all the facts and circumstances pertaining to a particular individual to make sure that we do not have people who are a threat to public safety released under our discretion.

Again, I point out two-thirds of the people released that have criminal records that you all have mentioned have been at either the instance under the direction the Supreme Court in the Zadvydas case or immigration judges letting folks go. The matter is out of our control.

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. I think I have got time for about one more question, hopefully the answer, too. Criminal alien gangs, such as MS-13, are growing rapidly across the Nation I think as we all know. MS-13 violence and gang-related murders have risen sharply in cities all over the country.

The Department of Justice estimates there are 6,000 MS-13 members in the U.S. and over 30,000 in Central America and Mex-ico, and I happen to be in Guatemala and Honduras and Costa Rica recently, and you know, one of their points was one of the rea-son a lot of these young people are coming up here is they are try-ing to get away from the gang activity.

And so one of the main things we could do to keep from coming up here is to help them fight that gang activity. I think there is some merit in that. It is not the whole answer, but I think it is part of it. With the continued surge of unaccompanied minors ille-gally entering at our southwest border, we can only expect gang membership in this country, likely, to increase. Gang membership and aggravated felons are supposed to be an enforcement priority under the DHS guidelines, yet ICE’s Office of Principal Legal Advi-sor closed removal cases against least 44 aggravated felons and 20 gang member since 2014. These individuals were released from custody, and ICE will not seek their removal. What is the purpose of enforcement priorities if ICE chooses not to adhere to the DHS guidelines?

Ms. SALDANA. Those guidelines are exactly that. As I said earlier, just like a Federal court judge makes a decision of releasing some-one on the basis of all the facts and circumstances relating to that person, we do that also with respect to the discretionary releases. So if you have someone who has turned away from gangs, who is

40

clearly try to make their way in this country, having rejected that lifestyle, that may be an explanation for some of those 40. I do not know exactly the 40 individuals you are talking about, but we look, sir.

We look at all the facts and circumstances. Gangs have been part of our special operations that we have conducted. We yielded about 1,000 gang members in our last operation, and they are now in re-moval proceedings on their way out of the country, so it is defi-nitely an enforcement priority, but that does not mean that every person who has had the moniker of being associated with a gang or a gang member previously would necessarily be detained if, in fact, they are in situations like I described, where someone is try-ing turn away from that lifestyle.

Mr. CHABOT. What about the aggravated felons? Mr. GOODLATTE. The gentleman is out of time, but you may an-

swer the question. Ms. SALDANA. Yeah, same with the aggravated felons, if there is

an aggravated felon. They are our priority. If they have been re-leased—I sound like a broken record I know—it is because of some-thing pertaining to that individual. Was this a felony that hap-pened 30 years ago? The person has been in this country for 50 years.

I do not know, but our people are trained, and they have con-sistent training over a period of time with respect to what to look for, what information to give. I have set up a review panel within headquarters to look at every criminal release and to make sure that we have done it properly and that there is actually a reason for the prosecutorial discretion if it is being exercised in that case.

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. Mr. GOODLATTE. The gentleman from Ohio yields back. The

Chair will now recognize the gentlelady from California, Ms. Chu. Ms. CHU. Thank you. Director Saldana, in 1996, the Immigration

and Naturalization Service released a document called Operating Instructions on Questioning Persons During Labor Disputes. The document has been used by advocates since its release and has served as a valuable resource for worker and immigrant advocates to explain to undocumented workers what they should expect when ICE agents arrive at a workplace.

In particular, the guidance laid ways in which immigration law enforcement officers could avoid unknowingly becoming involved in a labor dispute; for instance, if information may have been pro-vided in order to retaliate against employees for exercising their rights. Well, this spring, ICE revised the document, but has re-fused to make it public.

Director Saldana, I think it is important for immigrants and labor advocates to know your agency’s policies for governing ICE agent interactions with workers during employment disputes, so I would like to know why this document has not been made public.

Ms. SALDANA. The document that you are talking about having been revised?

Ms. CHU. Yes. Ms. SALDANA. If it contains sensitive law enforcement informa-

tion with respect to our procedures, our approaches to apprehen-sion or things like that, that is something that we would not dis-

41

close to the public, but I will tell you, Congresswoman, we have in-volved nongovernmental organizations, representatives from law enforcement in the drafting of so many of our policies with respect to detention, with respect to reform on family centers. I have got an advisory committee on that very issue. I will take a look at that and see specifically why it is that we have not released it and cer-tainly get back to you on that.

Ms. CHU. Well, I find it curious that you are saying it could be law-enforcement-sensitive because the document was made public for so many years since 1996.

Ms. SALDANA. And that is very unfortunate. I have made it a point to be careful with respect to our law-enforcement-sensitive in-formation. That is not something I agree with necessarily because we should not be disclosing certain procedures, but I do not know if this specific report falls within that.

Ms. CHU. Well, the Interagency Working Group created by Presi-dent Obama’s executive action on immigration was charged not only with developing more effective policies, but upholding the value of transparency, and this would seem to fall right into the ideal of being transparent.

So I would have to say that I truly am puzzled by this lack the transparency on this particular guidance, especially when it is a change in the negative in terms of reducing the information avail-able to people. Also, if you will not publicly release this new version of the operating instructions, are there alternative ways of allowing advocates to fully understand how ICE’s policy in this area has changed?

Ms. SALDANA. Absolutely. There are ways to communicate with the general public and immigrants, in particular, and we will look at that with respect to this particular document. You have given me an opportunity to talk about my community relations officer in our Office of Community Engagement that we just stood up re-cently for that very reason that you are talking about.

I want an open line of communication, not only with law enforce-ment, sheriffs, police chiefs, but also with members of the commu-nity, chambers of commerce, immigrant advocates. I have person-ally met, and so has my senior advisor who is actually here, Liz Cedillo-Pereira, with a number of groups across the country to try to explain our policies and why we go about our business in the way we do. We are not trying to hide our policies. I think many of them are published and in the public domain, and in fact, rather than hide, I am trying to inform folks where our priorities are, who should be concerned, and that is top of the list is criminals and gang members and the like, and who is not a priority within our system.

So I am with you on transparency and open communication. I wish I could get out to more places, but I have a ball and chain, unfortunately, that leaves me in Washington often, but I do have now a community relations officer, either en route or already on board, in every one of our areas of responsibility, 25 of them across the country with the exception of Hawaii.

Ms. CHU. Well, at the very least, can the immigrant and labor rights advocates have meetings with your top administrators so that they can explain how ICE’s policy, in this area, has changed?

42

Ms. SALDANA. We will certainly communicate on that policy with them. That will be included, along with things like where we ap-prehend people, sensitive locations, all these other issues that we try to deal with the advocate community on.

Ms. CHU. Thank you. I yield back. Mr. GOODLATTE. The gentlelady from California yields back. The

Chair will now recognize the gentleman from California, Chairman Issa.

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director, thank you for your openness and candor on a number of subjects. I have got one more. ICE’s policy of releasing removable criminal aliens under Priority Enforcement Program and the use of prosecutorial discretion has led to some tragic consequences.

No one doubts that we have had multiple, and they generally make national news for obvious reasons, but reports indicate that 83 percent of aliens released nationwide between 2012 and 2016 were convicted felons, and 30 percent of them committed serious felony offenses, such as rape, child molestation, and attempted murder. After the release from ICE, again, 30 percent committed additional felonies after their release.

Given the danger of recidivism by these individuals, or another way of putting it, Director, consider that, in your discretion, you have been wrong 30 percent of the time, and people have died. Peo-ple have been raped. People have been molested. Is it not, in fact, time to change that discretion to make it less permissive?

Ms. SALDANA. I am not sure where that is coming from, Con-gressman, with respect to we have been wrong 30 percent of the time. If you are talking about total releases, that is one number, but as I explained earlier, two-thirds of those releases are not at our discretion; only about 37 percent are, and in those cases, we take very good care in reviewing files to ensure that there is a basis for that release. The women and men of ICE do not want to see a single immigrant go back and commit a criminal act. We are doing the best we can. Are we perfect? We are not. I have to admit that.

Mr. ISSA. Well, let us look at it another way. Under Rodriguez currently, if you do not foresee finishing the adjudication of a case after 6 months, you are obliged to release a non-legal immigrant, someone who came here illegally, who you are attempting to de-port, and when you release them, they generally disappear, and un-less you catch them again, they do not up. Is that not correct?

Ms. SALDANA. Many times. Mr. ISSA. So for this Committee, the committee of jurisdiction, to

change the law, even to change the Constitution if needed, is this not a problem that, currently, either you do not have the tools to adjudicate a case within 6 months, or the courts are not available to you for an expeditious 6 months, and you are being forced to re-lease, knowingly, people who enter the country illegally, are appro-priate for deportation, often violent criminals, and yet you are forced to release them under current Supreme Court decision and ninth circuit, right?

Ms. SALDANA. That is true. Mr. ISSA. So if we look at both sides of the aisle here and we

were to look prospectively into next Congress, is not the most im-

43

*Note: The material referred to is not printed in this hearing record but is on file with the Committee, and can also be accessed at:

http://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=105348

portant tool we would give you a pair of tools? One, the ability to adjudicate cases in less than 6 months, so that you do not come up against the mandatory release, and sufficient assets to, in fact, en-sure that you never have to release somebody simply because you do not have the capacity to hold them.

Ms. SALDANA. That certainly would be helpful and if I can add to that point.

Mr. ISSA. Of course. Ms. SALDANA. And I would love to sit with anybody who is look-

ing at this issue in particular to assist in any way I can, but with respect to those people that we are required to release under the Supreme Court decision, many of them, and probably the majority, are because we cannot get travel documents from the country to which they need to be repatriated, and that is why we are working so hard with those foreign governments to try to change that.

Mr. ISSA. Well, then let me do a final question in my remaining 1 minute, and I will leave you plenty of time for an answer. I also serve on foreign affairs and my colleague, Mr. Chabot, and I serve together. Would it not be, at a bare minimum, appropriate to pro-vide the Department of State the insistence on your behalf through the Secretary Johnson that, in fact, there be an outcome, meaning visas which are granted by the State Department, should be with-held by countries who refuse to take back the individuals who have committed crimes, done other wrong things, and for which we want to return them to their home country?

Is that not really the quid pro quo that should exist where Sec-retary Johnson should be able to get the Secretary of State to use his authority to effectively stop granting visas, at least reduce them, to countries that are not cooperating? Is that not a back and forth that the next Administration is going to have to deal with?

Ms. SALDANA. I think so, and the Secretary is very much aware of that, and he has taken under advisement how he should exercise that authority.

Mr. ISSA. Has he made that request to the Secretary of State? Ms. SALDANA. As I said earlier, I believe he has one seriously

under consideration. I do not know that the letter has actually been exchanged.

Mr. ISSA. Thank you. Ms. SALDANA. But I do know he is aware of it. Mr. ISSA. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. GOODLATTE. The gentleman from California yields back. The

Chair will now recognize the gentlelady from California. Ms. LOFGREN. I would like to make a unanimous request for

unanimous consent that the statements of the Lutheran Immigra-tion Refugee Service, the National Immigration Law Center, Human Rights First, the Fair Immigration Reform Movement, He-brew Immigration Assistance, and the American Immigration Council be placed in the record.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Without objection.* The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mr.

Deutch.

44

Mr. DEUTCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director Saldana, thanks for being here. I want to go back to something that the Chairman had asked initially when he asked about the 34,000 beds that Congress says must be filled and the reliance on private facili-ties to fill those beds.

And as you are aware, in our Homeland Security appropriations bill, Congress requires the detention, foolishly, I believe, requires the detention of 34,000 people each day, with no regard for actual need, and this requirement, referred to as the detention bed man-date, it costs more than $2 billion per year or $5.5 million per day. And the cost of holding someone in detention is approximately $159 per day per person when, in many instances, there are other ways that the person can be monitored at significantly lower cost to the taxpayer, and I just wanted to go back.

I have serious concerns about the contracts between ICE and pri-vate detention companies that mandate that a fixed number of peo-ple be locked up at specific centers. The GAO has raised concerns about both the cost and the practice of lockup quotas, and groups like Detention Watch Network and the Center for Constitutional Rights have also spoken out against them. The lock up quota provi-sions obligate ICE to pay for a minimum number of immigration detention beds at specific facilities referred to in contracts as guar-anteed minimums. And under these contracts, ICE pays for a min-imum number of detention beds, even if they are not used, all to ensure that these private companies receive a profit.

And after July 14, 2015 Oversight hearing with Secretary John-son, I submitted several questions for the record on guaranteed minimum detention beds that are contained in contracts between ICE and these private companies. The secretary responded and confirmed that contracts between ICE and private detention com-panies contain this guaranteed minimum of detention beds. These contractual provisions containing lockup quotas are entrenching the national detention bed mandate at the local level and encour-age local ICE officials to keep people in detention.

Now over the summer, a report by the U.S. Commission on Inter-national Religious Freedom was released. It described a very dis-turbing statement from an ICE official at headquarters who de-scribed that bond rates are determined in different areas based on bed space. Rates are lower when there are fewer beds available since there is nowhere to detain the individual and vice versa. It is extremely troubling that bond rates are being set for people based on the availability of detention bed space in a locality instead of whether or not that person is a flight risk and whether or not they are violent.

So I just have a few questions. Does the statement from an ICE official accurately describe how bond rates are set?

Ms. SALDANA. No. Mr. DEUTCH. That statement was incorrect? Could you elaborate? Ms. SALDANA. Yeah, the bonds are set either by a court or, in

those cases where ICE has some discretion, we look at the facts and circumstances of the case and set the bond amount at a num-ber that will ensure that person’s appearance for their day in court. So that is the instruction that is out there that is writing to our lawyers, and that is the way it is exercised.

45

Mr. DEUTCH. So the statement in the report that the ICE official said bond rates are determined based on bed space is absolutely in-accurate?

Ms. SALDANA. It is inaccurate. Mr. DEUTCH. Do you a agree that Congress requiring that these

beds be filled takes away the discretion of law enforcement in a way that Congress does not do to any other law enforcement agen-cy?

Ms. SALDANA. I have the ultimate responsibility for detention and detention centers, sir. The way I construe that that mandate, the mandate is to have those beds available. The mandate is not to spend X amount of money. I am not going to put somebody in a detention bed that does not need to be there, neither am I going to deny to release someone because detention space is not available if they need to be detained.

Mr. DEUTCH. Director Saldana, I am sorry. I do not have a lot of time. I understand what you would do, but when these contracts are entered into with private detention facilities, does the detention mandate come into play? Do those contracts guarantee to these pri-vate operators that certain beds will be paid for on a regular basis?

Ms. SALDANA. We have to anticipate that there are a certain number of beds available. The 34,000 is a number that is obviously part of that mandate of available beds, so we have to have that available, whether those beds are used or not. That is the way that the statue is written.

Mr. DEUTCH. Right, so you would agree with me that Congress getting involved to mandate that there is a certain number of beds that are filled, which is the way it is interpreted by my colleagues here who put that misguided policy into law, that having that in there takes away the discretion of the ICE officials, and in fact, winds up guaranteeing profits for these private detention facilities?

Ms. SALDANA. That is not why we engage in these contracts with them, and I do not put someone in a detention bed just because I need to fill one.

Mr. DEUTCH. I know that not why you engage, but the private companies come to you and say, ‘‘We have to have X number of beds paid for. Congress says it, and Congress says that there has to be billions of dollars spent every year in order to ensure that. We are going to calculate these, our fees, based on what Congress says has to be done, regardless of whether you believe that those beds should be filled or not and whether the person is determined to be a flight risk or not.’’

Mr. GOODLATTE. The gentleman is out of time, but you are wel-come to an answer.

Ms. SALDANA. I am sorry. I lost your question there. What was your question? I am sorry.

Mr. DEUTCH. It was a description of the way that these private detention facilities negotiate these contracts based upon the $2 bil-lion a year that Congress says has to be spent in large part for the benefit and, primarily, some would argue, for the benefit of these private detention companies.

Ms. SALDANA. I will tell you, they do not dictate to us what terms of the contract are. We let out a proposal that specified the terms of the contracts, and that 34,000 is a useful tool, because that is

46

how much money we have, in order to set that number, but that bed is not going to be filled unless it needs to be. And we are not going to release anyone who should be in a bed because we do not have money available.

Mr. DEUTCH. But then it is not your determination what beds are needed. It is the determination made by Congress that says that we are going to spend $2 billion a year to make beds available. That is interpreted by my colleagues as those beds should be filled, which ultimately is going to benefit those private companies.

For everyone who has looked at this, to take away the discretion of ICE official to decide what should to be done here and to say that Congress is imposing it so that these private companies can come to and say, ‘‘Look, Congress has to spend the money, $2 bil-lion. Here is the number that we need in order to build this,’’ does not seem like the right approach. That is all I am saying. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GOODLATTE. The gentleman reluctantly yields back, and the Chair would now recognize the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Franks.

Mr. FRANKS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Director Saldana, thank you for being here. If I can, I want to take up where Chairman Issa left off. I thought his questions were pro-found, very cogent, because Issa suggested that, in court records, that ‘‘many of the criminals that they release were traffic violators or other nonviolent offenders,’’ but Mr. Issa’s comments there show that the percentage of criminals released by ICE nationwide, from 2012 to 2016, was 83 percent. I mean, is that right?

That is an enormous figure because, from my perspective, you know, the first purpose of the Federal Government is to defend and protect its citizens, and that seems like prima facie evidence that we are failing at least in this area, even if the effort is sincere. If 83 percent of those that we are releasing from 2012 to 2016 were felons, that is a big deal, and I do not know about the 30 percent recidivism. Do you think that is approximately correct, the 30 per-cent recidivism?

Ms. SALDANA. I have not done the math, sir, but if you have, I am not going to quibble with you.

Mr. FRANKS. Well, you know, I will not press the point, but if 83 percent of those that we are releasing are convicted felons, then there is something desperately wrong in the system somewhere. And I guess, you know, just in the re-offenses, we are showing sta-tistics of around 130 murders or attempted murders since 2010, and according to a letter ICE provided in February to Senator Chuck Grassley, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, that is their number, but ICE has insisted that reoffenders were isolated examples, and these are not isolated examples.

These murders and these numbers are staggering, and I guess the next question that occurs is, what is ICE specifically doing now to prevent the release of these serious criminals onto America’s streets?

Ms. SALDANA. As I mentioned earlier, sir, I share the same con-cern as you did. When I first arrived in this job, back now almost 2 years ago, this was of great concern to me. We need to be very careful in those releases. Setting aside the fact that about two-

47

thirds of those releases are required upon us by either courts or the Zadvydas decision, I have a committee at headquarters that re-views these criminal releases to make sure that the field office di-rectors and supervisors in the field have taken to account, very carefully, all the facts and circumstances of that case and have made a decision based on facts, not feelings, but based on facts that that person does not present a threat to the community.

So mixed into the numbers that you are talking about are some of these people. Well, two-thirds of them, who are not being re-leased by ICE. I assure you, no one at Homeland Security or at ICE takes the release of someone with a criminal conviction more seriously than we do.

Mr. FRANKS. Well, but the original question is, what are we doing now to ameliorate the fact that 83 percent of the people we are releasing are felons, and probably 30 percent of them are re-committing? I mean, I know you probably just do not know.

Ms. SALDANA. No, I do know. We have given specific training and instruction to the field of things to look for with respect to any deci-sion on a release. That is discretionary. It is based on the entire file. It is not based on a feeling that someone is good or bad. It is based on the file and the facts and circumstances. Once that deci-sion is made locally, we review the decision at headquarters to make sure that it is a well-reasoned decision and not just based on someone who has been careless. And as I said earlier, sir, I fall on my sword where we have not used our best judgment and discre-tion. I wish we were 100 percent perfect in the regard.

Mr. FRANKS. No, I understand. I understand. It sounds like you are making an effort, but there is still, you know, 130 people, Americans, who have died because we made the wrong decision there.

Let me quickly shift gears. About 140 Nations refuse to take back at least some of the citizens that come over here, and I think we have gotten a letter from, is it Gambia that we are sending a letter to that they—100 percent of them? Are there any others be-sides Gambia? I mean, is that the extent of our commitment there?

Are we sending letters to any other country and saying, if your people come here and break our laws or cross our borders illegally, we are going to send them back, or we are going to stop giving you visas? Is there any other country besides Gambia that we are doing that?

Ms. SALDANA. Well, the one we are talking about Gambia is where the Secretary actually communicates with the Secretary of State to——

Mr. FRANKS. But are there any other countries besides them that we are making motions in?

Ms. SALDANA. Speaking of letters, I have sent about 126 myself to countries. I have met with ambassadors of those countries. I have met with our ambassadors in those countries to try to do what we can to change their minds because these are obligations under world treaties. So we are doing our best to bring those peo-ple around.

Mr. FRANKS. Well, Mr. Chairman, my time is up, but I would just suggest to you they do not need to change their mind. We need to change our mind and say, if you do not take these back, we will

48

not offer visas in the future. It is a pretty simple equation. Thank you. Thank you.

Mr. GOODLATTE. The gentleman from Arizona yields back. The Chair will not recognize the gentlelady from Washington, Ms. DelBene.

Ms. DELBENE. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and Director Saldana, thank you for being with us today. It has been reported that draft rules are being considered that would create national uniformity for immigration judges to allow child immigrants more time to ob-tain legal representation.

And in light of the ninth circuit’s decision or opinion this week, I think these rules would be a highly welcomed step toward ensur-ing fair treatment for the most vulnerable individuals who are seeking refuge across our borders. So I wondered if you could share with the Committee your office’s involvement in the discussions on those rules, if any, and as the agency that is responsible for car-rying out removals following legal proceedings, do you have any comment on this issue?

Ms. SALDANA. Those rules you are talking about would bind the immigration courts, and those come under the Department of Jus-tice, not the Department of Homeland Security. The immigration courts are under the Department of Justice. I am sure, at some point, if they are being considered now, that we may well be con-sulted. Quite frankly, I may not wait to be consulted. We may reach out and see if we can have some input, but that would be a decision by the Department of Justice and, ultimately, by the courts as to whether it is sufficient.

Ms. DELBENE. Well, in a concurring opinion in the ninth circuit case, two judges, one a Republican appointee and one a Democratic appointee, came together and they said, ‘‘What is missing here, money and resolve, political solutions that fall outside the purview of the courts.’’

So in other words, what is missing here is congressional action and the political will to ensure that young children fleeing violence are not facing the complexities of our immigration procedures alone.

The law requires fair hearings, and I would say that 3-year-olds who are alone before judges is not fair. So Director, what do you think is needed to help ensure that we are treating children, who come to our immigration judges in a manner that reflects at least the most basic notions of justice and due process, what do you think we should be doing to make sure that we are making sure those children’s rights are protected.

Ms. SALDANA. I just, 2 weeks ago, was in Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, and I saw and met several of those children, fami-lies, mothers, children, adult men. It is an important, significant issue. I am glad to hear that there are some rules that are being considered.

I agree with you that a 3-year-old cannot be expected to know what their rights and privileges are, but again, we will reach out to see if we can be consulted about this, but in the end, it is the Department of Justice, and that is my old department, so I know that they will take good care of promulgating something fair and correct.

49

Ms. DELBENE. Do you think that Congress has a role to play on this issue? So what would you recommend?

Ms. SALDANA. I have been preaching since almost the day I ar-rived that we need comprehensive immigration reform. We cannot just be dealing with one issue or the other, and this should be to-ward the top of the list, how children’s rights are vindicated and represented; it should be a part of a comprehensive immigration re-form package I believe.

Ms. DELBENE. And I just want to highlight that over 7,000 chil-dren have been deported, who have come from Central America, largely due to notification problems, lack of representation, difficul-ties navigating the process, and so we have impacted many, many children already. Does getting this right have an impact on the ability of ICE to properly carry out its mission?

Ms. SALDANA. Sure. I just want to be sure that I am clear on this. You know, our whole involvement with unaccompanied chil-dren is to process their entry into the country and then turn them over to the Department of Health and Human Services, who looks after their needs and where they are while their cases are being heard.

So it is a fairly minor role with respect to children, but obviously we have concerns and heart, and we believe that we need to have their issues treated differently and sensitively because of their age, but we have very little involvement with underage children.

Ms. DELBENE. Again, the law requires fair hearings, and I want to make sure that we have fair hearings for young children who are seeking refuge across our border, so thank you, and my time is ex-pired. I yield back, Mr. Chair.

Mr. GOODLATTE. The gentlelady from Washington yields back. The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Texas, the former U.S. Attorney, Mr. Ratcliffe.

Ms. RATCLIFFE. Thank you, Chairman, Director Saldana. It is good to see you. I appreciate you being with us this morning, and I appreciate the candor of your testimony. That is not something that we always get in front of this Committee from some of the Ad-ministration officials that have been here.

I want to start out by asking you about a specific immigration case that tragically impacted a family in my Northeast Texas Dis-trict at the hands of a man who was, for at least the second time, in this country illegally. Back in April, a van driven by that man, Margarito Quintero, swerved from his lane into the opposite lane and drove a car being driven by 42-year-old man by the name of Peter Hacking, who was a fire captain from Wiley, Texas. In the car with Mr. Hacking was his 4-year-old daughter, Ellie, and his 2-year-old son, Grayson. All three of them were killed.

Now, Mr. Quintero is a Mexican citizen who entered the United States illegally the first time that we know in 2006, where he was subsequently arrested and deported in 2008. And I do not know how many times he reentered the country illegally, but we know he was back for at least a second time in 2016 and obviously with tragic consequences.

Now, I want to start out and go on record to thank you, Director, for being responsive personally. When I called your office imme-diately after the incident, I did not expect to get a callback directly

50

from you, and I received one. And what you told me during the phone call about what ICE was going to do, was able to provide the Hacking family with a small, but I think very important, token of assurance that justice would not be ignored. So I am grateful to you, and I know the Hacking family is as well, and I want to go on record to that point.

I think the fact that I felt compelled to urgently pick up the phone and call you really speaks to the larger problem. I felt com-pelled to do that because I was aware of a similar accident in Ne-braska that resulted in an illegal alien posting bail and then flee-ing the country because ICE had declined, in that case, to issue a detainer.

So I was really acting out of fear, and I am sure you can under-stand why I was not about to let that happened to one of my con-stituents. So again, I want to thank you for issuing the detainer, so that we know that, if Mr. Quintero is somehow released from local custody, we have the comfort of knowing that he will go into Federal custody.

But let me ask about the specific case, if you can provide me an update, because Mr. Quintero has been charged with three counts of manslaughter by the Collin County D.A. and is awaiting trial on those charges, but can you provide me and the Hackings’ family and my constituents some assurance that Mr. Quintero will also face Federal charges for illegal reentry?

Ms. SALDANA. Yes, and thank you for your kind remarks, Con-gressman. As I told you, I made a commitment regarding Mr. Quintero. He is from my State of Texas as well. The accident oc-curred in my State of Texas, and the victims were from Texas. We have a detainer on him. That means that we will be hearing, and we have no problems from Collin County. You are very familiar with the area with respect to cooperation on those detainers. We will keep an eye out on the trial, and hopefully, we will get a long sentence, and then after that sentence, we will retain custody. We will obtain custody and proceed further there.

Ms. RATCLIFFE. Thank you, Director. I guess as a side note, it is an issue outside of your jurisdiction, but I would, for the record, say that this really speaks to the larger issue that my constituents really care about, which is border security. To that point, even if you are perfect in your job, with respect to the enforcement of our immigration laws, if someone like Mr. Quintero can, after removal from our country, simply walk back and forth across an imaginary line and commit more crimes, then I think we are doing the Amer-ican people are grave disservice.

But having said that, Director, an issue where you do have juris-diction and can play a role in addressing situations like this that are frankly happening far too often is with respect to the 287(g) program. And so if county and local jurisdictions want to partici-pate in the ICE 287(g) program to assist ICE in enforcing our im-migration laws, why is ICE not leaping at the chance to do that? And the reason I say that is I know there are at least 10 jurisdic-tions where applications to be part of that have been pending with ICE for number of years.

Ms. SALDANA. Well, since I have been board, we have reviewed the requests of jurisdictions who have indicated an interest in

51

287(g). I have signed several letters approvingly the expansion of 287(g) to several jurisdictions, including some in Texas. So we are open for business with respect to that. We do look carefully at the jurisdiction, make sure that they understand what their role is, what our role is, but we will accept those requests and review them, and then, to the extent that they would be appropriate part-ners with us, under our requirements under 287(g), we will engage them.

Ms. RATCLIFFE. Okay, so can I take it, then, from your testimony that the backlog that is there, as I understand it, is maybe due to manpower, as opposed to——

Ms. SALDANA. No, actually, I can pretty much assure you—we can talk about specific jurisdictions as a follow up to the hearing, sir, but I can assure you that since I have been on board, we have been back to anybody who indicated an interest in 287(g) to inquire whether they still had that interest. Some of them do not, so we cannot do anything about that, but with respect to those who have, once they pass our requirements, we certainly will take a look at them to become our partners in that program.

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Great. Well, I am glad to hear that. Thanks, Di-rector.

Ms. SALDANA. Thank you. Mr. RATCLIFFE. I will yield back. Mr. GOODLATTE. The gentleman from Texas yields back. The

Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Rhode Island, Mr. Cicilline.

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Director, for being here. Director, in your written testimony, you reference ICE’s investigative efforts relating to individuals who are either seeking admission or engaged in immigration proceedings, with re-spect to the issue of human rights abuses and that you screen for human rights abuses. And I am working on a piece of legislation that will give the Department of Justice the authority to prosecute human rights abusers who commit crimes against humanity if they end up in the jurisdiction of the United States. So could you tell me what that screening process that you described looks like, what you do to prevent those who have committed human rights abuses from entering the United States?

Ms. SALDANA. Well, we have a tremendous network of visa secu-rity posts, where somebody is trying to come in on a non-immigrant visa. And that is one of the issues that is top at our list of things to consider. I have a unit within the Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, our lawyers, specifically focused and dedicated to the iden-tification and apprehension and prosecution of human rights viola-tors.

I would love for you to meet them, especially if you are working on this legislation; they are rabid about their work and very com-mitted to making sure we are bringing these folks to justice. But that is very much a part of what our communications are with for-eign governments. We are in 46 countries across the world, rep-resented through our attache network, in getting information from local governments that they can offer us as we are making these reviews for visa security purposes and for just generally admission into the United States.

52

Mr. CICILLINE. And I would very much welcome the opportunity to meet with that unit——

Ms. SALDANA. Good. Mr. CICILLINE [continuing]. Because I think it would be very

helpful. The second thing I want to ask you about is first to extend a thank you to you for the work that the Department of Homeland Security and ICE has done for kind of taking a deeper look into how LGBT immigrants face particular challenges in the detention process and for issuing guidelines on how to address and deal with LGBT individuals in detention, but, of course, as you know, guide-lines are only as good at the people who enforce them.

Would you tell us a little bit about what efforts are taking place to enforce and enhance the guidelines for LGBT individuals in ICE custody? And what training and instruction is underway for ICE of-ficers with respect to this community?

Ms. SALDANA. We have a policy group that has been involved in looking at that guidance. Any time we issue guidance like that, we make sure that everyone who touches those cases where there might be a concern that someone is detained and they might be subjected to abuse, that we look at those cases and make sure that people understand what our guidance is, that we must be sensitive to these issues, that we must look through the appropriate environ-ment to place these folks.

We must talk to the individuals themselves to see what their in-terests are. And, so, we train consistently on that subject, and we have input from the communities themselves into what we can do better with respect to that. You know, this is not an issue that we have dealt with a lot, I can say, but it is a very serious one in our view.

Mr. CICILLINE. I think we all remember, Director, that story from the summer of 2014 when we were receiving a large number of un-accompanied minors across our southern border. I know, at that time, the Department of Homeland Security put into place policies, particularly to deal with unaccompanied minors. Can you just tell us what those policies are today? Are we ensuring that these young children who have experienced sometimes unspeakable trauma in their travels to the U.S. or are facing abuse or violence if they are returned home, are they getting the help that they need with ICE?

I know some of this is not within your jurisdiction, but do they have access to counseling, to translation services, to council? And I recognize, as I said, some of this is not within your jurisdiction, but to the extent that you could inform us to the best of your knowledge, what is happening to these children who are without parents when they are coming?

Ms. SALDANA. Well, both our sister agencies, CBP Customs and Border Protection, which may be the first point on this when they see them at the borders or ports of entry, and our agents are trained in dealing with these young people, these children, babies, in many cases, for the limited time that we have some involvement with them.

As I said earlier, our involvement, basically, after that is to turn them over to the Department of Health and Human Services. I know, because I have had a couple of conversations with the folks there, that they work very hard to train their own people because,

53

in the end, they are responsible for their well-being until their cases are determined. But I am happy to certainly pass your in-quiry along to them, so they can provide you some more fulsome explanation because I am not personally familiar with everything they do there.

Mr. CICILLINE. I would thank you for that, Director, and I yield back.

Mr. GOODLATTE. The gentleman yields back. The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Chaffetz.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I thank the gentleman, and Director, thank you so much for being here. I appreciate it. It was March 18th of last year that you appeared before the Oversight Committee, and you admitted that in fiscal year 2014 ICE had released some 30,000 aliens with criminal convictions. And then in fiscal year 2013, 36,007 criminal aliens were released.

And then in 2015, ICE released some 19,723 criminal aliens. As of February 11th of this year, 124 illegal immigrant criminals re-leased from detention since 2010 have subsequently been charged with homicide. Two had homicide-related convictions before they were released for the first time.

So the question here is one of the rate of recidivism. Do you have any updated stats or perspective on the rate of recidivism of the criminal aliens that you are releasing back into the public?

Ms. SALDANA. You know, we have looked at that, and I know I have had some information that relates to that, sir, but I do not recall it just off the top of my mind. May I provide that to you?

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Yeah, and I understand it is hard to recite all of these statistics, you know, impromptu over a several-hour hearing, but could you provide us, what is a reasonable time to get back to us on that? Pick the date.

Ms. SALDANA. Someone is going to kick me. I am pretty sure—— Mr. CHAFFETZ. I am happy to do that if you would like. Ms. SALDANA. I am pretty sure that, within the month, we can

get it to you. I am going to get it to you as quickly as I can. Mr. CHAFFETZ. Can we say by the end of the month? Can we

shoot for that? Ms. SALDANA. This month? Mr. CHAFFETZ. Yes. Ms. SALDANA. I do not think so. Mr. CHAFFETZ. No? Okay. Ms. SALDANA. It is 8 days away. Mr. CHAFFETZ. I do not know why it would take a month,

but—— Ms. SALDANA. At the outside, sir—— Mr. CHAFFETZ [continuing]. Two weeks, is that—— Ms. SALDANA. I will get it to you as soon as I can. Mr. CHAFFETZ. All right. And this is of prime concern, is people

that are here illegally and they commit a crime, they get convicted of that crime; they may or may not serve time, but the concern is that we release them back out into the public, as opposed to de-porting them. So last time we were together, in our Oversight hear-ing, we talked about the ability—it is what Mr. Franks was, in part, talking about. If these countries to accept those, what coun-tries are not accepting the deportation of criminal aliens?

54

Ms. SALDANA. We have a list of 23 countries that we refer to as recalcitrant; we just compiled that list recently because we want to keep a record of those that are not working with us.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Can I get a copy of that? Ms. SALDANA. Absolutely. And then we have a longer list, with

respect to those that are not particularly cooperative, that we have difficulty. While we may honor some, maybe they do not take oth-ers back. So we certainly can provide that to you, sir.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Well, as you know, since last year, there are pro-visions in the law that the State Department must act on. And the frustration is that the State Department has been empowered by the United States Congress, in fact directed by the Congress, to not allow them to grant visas from those countries, so why should we be issuing visas in a country to come to the United States when we are taking our criminal aliens and saying, ‘‘Look, this person is here illegally; they are from your country; you should go back?’’

So where are we at in that process? If you have 23, what has been shared with the Secretary of Homeland Security? And, con-sequently, what has gone on to the Secretary of State for action under the law?

Ms. SALDANA. I am very pleased with the fact that the Chief of the Bureau of Consular Affairs, the individual who worries about all her consulates and embassies across the world, I have been meeting with her several times, personally, as we go over informa-tion relating to what can be done with respect to these uncoopera-tive countries.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Can you please update us as to where we are at in that process? Because you have given the information to the Sec-retary of State, but the Secretary is required under the law to act on that. But I need exposure as to what has been given to the Sec-retary of State, where in the food chain we are breaking down, be-cause we need action taken on some of these countries. I really do believe that, if some of these countries faced a consequence, the other countries might sit up and, you know, pay attention.

So I have got to hit on more thing, and I have got only 3 minutes left of my time here. We have been given this document; it is the lack of identity documents in the refugee process, from Homeland Security. Again, I do not mean to play ‘‘got you,’’ but I would like to know if you are familiar with this document and get your reac-tion to it. There is some very troubling aspects to it. I do not know if you are immediately familiar with this document. I would like to confirm its authenticity with you. But I need to understand if this is something that you are familiar with.

Mr. GOODLATTE. The gentleman is out of time, but you may an-swer the question, Director.

Ms. SALDANA. Somebody just handed me a document. I presume it is the one you are talking about that is entitled——

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Yes, yes. Ms. SALDANA. I have never seen this document before. I do not

know how long you have had it. But I—— Mr. CHAFFETZ. I have not had it very long. Mr. Chairman, I just

hope that if the Director could get back to us about its authenticity and any comments, particularly the first two sentences of the sec-

55

ond paragraph are extremely concerning to us. Thank the Chair-man for his indulgence.

Mr. GOODLATTE. The gentleman from Utah yields back. The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Pe-ters.

Mr. PETERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to begin by asking a unanimous consent to enter into the record two articles dated the 21st and 22nd of September from San Diego Union Trib-une that highlight the urgency of the situation facing Haitian en-trants in San Diego.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Without objection. [The information referred to follows:]

56

57

58

59

60

61

Mr. PETERS. Thank you, Madam Director, for being here. I had some questions on that topic. Since 2010, Haitian entrants have been given a special refugee status when attempting to enter the U.S. Just this morning, Secretary Johnson announced that he, yes-terday, directed that enforcement decisions with respect to Haitian nationals should be consistent, standard practice guided by him memorandum dated November 20, 2014.

The justification for this change in policy seems to be rooted in ‘‘sufficient improvements’’ to the situation in Haiti. However, my understanding is that the position of the Haiti Government is that they do not have the ability or capacity to accept the return of these individuals. So can you please elaborate on the justification for this change in policy toward Haitian entrants?

Ms. SALDANA. Yes, that was announced by press release, I think, by the Secretary today. And he cited in there two reasons for this. One was the changed conditions, as he has perceived based on all of the facts and information that was available to him since that terrible disaster in 2010. You know, at one point, beginning then, the then Secretary of Homeland Security stopped deportations of Haitians. They let up a little bit on it a year or two later, but since then, it culminated in today’s announcement.

The other aspect of it is the number of Haitians that are at our borders seeking entrance; treating them the same as everyone else will still afford them, Congressman, rights that are provided by statute, with respect to asylum and refugee status. They will be looked at in terms of their claims; probably immigration courts will make a final determination. But it does not take away or strip those rights; they will still have them.

Mr. PETERS. Do you think ICE has the funding and capacity nec-essary to detain and process the Haitian migrants currently wait-ing at the southern border?

Ms. SALDANA. Those and the other increased numbers of families from Central America are really taxing our resources.

Mr. PETERS. So in San Diego, we have welcomed about 4,000 Haitian entrants. And the community has stepped up to accommo-date the individuals. Are you aware of assistance that is available to our community to help with the temporary housing of folks like this?

Ms. SALDANA. Well, I will tell you who has always stepped up in this regard is religious organizations. I am just so impressed by, both on the border that I have visited myself, personally, and also in San Isidro and San Diego that I have been to personally, also; these organizations step up to help, and I know that we will advise and work with organizations to assist with respect to some human-itarian aid that can be made available to those people that need it.

Mr. PETERS. Do you have any sense of what kind of increase in your budget would be necessary to provide the assistance we need at the border and in housing people like this?

Ms. SALDANA. I really do not know, sir. I have not studied it to that extent. I certainly can converse with you more later.

Mr. PETERS. Can you get back to me on that? Ms. SALDANA. When I study on that, yes.

62

Mr. PETERS. Finally, just to raise the issue with respect to Zika, we have people migrating from and through areas known to be home to Zika, active Zika zones. Obviously, the community and the Nation has to make sure that these people get access to care as quickly as possible. And, obviously, Congress has to do its part.

I am optimistic we will do something about that soon. But it takes an average of 4 weeks for these entrants to receive benefits. Do you have any plans, assuming sufficient timing, to accelerate that time line in light of the public health concerns about Zika transmission? So in other words, the 4 weeks it takes to get bene-fits?

Ms. SALDANA. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement? Mr. PETERS. In general, taking people who are coming through

areas with active Zika problems. Ms. SALDANA. Yes, I know that there is medical screening that

is done both by CBP, our sister agency, and ourselves. With respect to the bigger picture on the overall public health concern, I wish I could help you on that, Congressman, but I really am not familiar with all that.

Mr. PETERS. Do you have any suggestions for us in how we would reduce that 4-week timeline between when people ask for help and get it concerning Zika?

Ms. SALDANA. I can certainly give that some thinking and study-ing. I am afraid that is another issue that I just cannot give you more information on that is informative in any way.

Mr. PETERS. Well, I am out of time. I appreciate your being here today. And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Ms. SALDANA. Thank you. Mr. GOODLATTE. The gentleman from California yields back. The

Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gohmert. Mr. GOHMERT. Director Saldana, it is good to have you here.

First, let me say, I know in May you suffered what every parent I know hopes and prays they never have to endure. And so our thoughts and prayers have been with you since we found out about that. I know Michael has to leave a tough spot that will never be filled. And I know that it has got to be tough to continue on, but we appreciate your continuing to do what you can.

Ms. SALDANA. Thank you, Congressman. I appreciate that. Mr. GOHMERT. Yeah. So that is something every parent, I know,

shares. But I wanted to share with you about an experience I had earlier this year down on the border in the McAllen Sector that had taken over, as I understand, being the busiest. And, of course, you are aware that is a wider area of the Rio Grande.

I hear people talk about areas where you can walk across. And, obviously, that is not one of them. You do not make it across unless you have got help, and normally, it is in one of the rafts that coyotes are bringing across. But, as I am sure you are aware, the State of Texas had appropriated millions of dollars; they have got four boats down there on that section of the Rio Grande; and those boats are extremely well-equipped. And in all the nights I have spent on the border down there, one, some months back, was on the fast boat that Texas DPS had, has the thermal technology. We had night vision, so we were able to use the night vision, but the thermal technology was just amazing.

63

And as we went down the river, and we would spot people when it is 2:00, 3 in the morning, when people are gathering up along the edge of the river behind trees, bushes, and other things, you know they are probably going to try to cross. And we know that there were Homeland Security employees along the way, some Bor-der Patrol.

And when we would see somebody, like, okay, there was two, maybe three, looks like they are carrying something. They are squatting, looks like they are trying to bring something in, not peo-ple. And that is communicated to Homeland Security personnel. And there was balloons down there they would send up, and they could focus in and use the technology, and generally, we would get the response back, ‘‘Yes, we have those individuals spotted.’’

Go further down the river, and there was 16, 17, maybe 18 peo-ple. They are not carrying anything. Looks like they are just going to try to come across. And as we spotted things, that was conveyed to Homeland Security personnel. And the balloons, the cameras would zoom, and they would find who we had reported. We went down to a bend in the river and turned off the engine and waited for a long period of time.

And then the Federal employees finally communicated, ‘‘Look, these people are still continuing to stay right where they are. They know you turned off your engine. They know you are down there somewhere where you could get back to them before they cross. So why do you not go on back to your dock, and we will intervene when they try to cross?’’ And so they asked, is that all right with me?

I said, ‘‘You are the guys in charge.’’ So we went back to the dock. And as soon as we got back to the dock, we got the report that, when they heard our engines going far enough away, that the groups that we had seen came across. And they were happy to re-port that they had gotten all of the 18 that came across that we had spotted with the thermal and that the people that appeared to be brining large amount of drugs in, they had not gotten them. They are somewhere on the U.S. side, but they got all of those that came in.

And I said to the Texas DPS, they did not intervene and tell them to go back before they got onto American soil? And the Texas guy said, ‘‘That is what they do. They let them come on to U.S., and then we had got the report they had all been successful proc-essed in and with no intention of deporting them anytime soon.’’ Now, I know there have been around, what, 160,000 or so that have been turned back that are being counted as apprehensions and deportations. But are you aware of ICE just taking people that were caught red-handed coming in illegally and then just in proc-ess, rather than being deported?

Mr. GOODLATTE. The gentleman is out of time, but you may an-swer the question.

Ms. SALDANA. I am. Congressman, I suspect that would have been our sister agency, as you said.

Mr. GOHMERT. Under Border Patrol. Ms. SALDANA. Right. Yeah. Mr. GOHMERT. But then you had ICE people backing them up.

You know you have got a lot of ICE folks there.

64

Ms. SALDANA. Oh, if there were drugs on them and we had our hands on them, we would not have let them go.

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, they were never captured. That is the point. But, anyway, it is now on your radar, and it really needs to be dealt with, and I appreciate the Chairman’s indulgence. Thank you.

Mr. GOWDY [presiding]. The gentleman from Texas yields back. Director, I want to thank you for your patience this morning. I am last. I am going to bounce to a couple of different topics. So if it is confusing, it is only because of the question.

So we are going to start with visas and schools. Would it be help-ful to your student visa fraud enforcement efforts if all schools that accept foreign students were required to be accredited?

Ms. SALDANA. It makes a difference, sir. Of course. It makes a difference to have accredited institutions that will be partners with us in our efforts to keep track of students who are coming in from foreign countries.

Mr. GOWDY. How much of an issue has it been, or have you seen these kind of visa mills where you bring students here with no ex-pectation that they actually pursue and education?

Ms. SALDANA. Well, we had a tremendous case announced that was there at the press conference with my former colleague, Paul Fishman, the U.S. attorney in New Jersey, where we brought down a university that was just an academic mill. I am very proud of that work done by our Homeland Security investigation agents, who had an elaborate undercover operation going on and there were multiple, 18, 19, for some reason, is coming to mind, of people that were involved in that. It is a matter we take great interest in and focus our investigations on.

Mr. GOWDY. I want to ask you about two reports and then you can tell me whether the reporting is accurate and, if so, if there is an explanation what that may be. There is a report that you have asked for less money for alien detention and less money for fugitive operations. Is it true that your request was for less money? And if so, why?

Ms. SALDANA. My request? Mr. GOWDY. Yes, ma’am. Ms. SALDANA. I think the Department of Homeland Security sub-

mits a broad request for all agencies. Obviously, they consult with all of us. But I would not have asked for less money in those areas.

Mr. GOWDY. Okay. There is another report that, at least in pre-vious years, occasionally, ICE attorneys would not appear for hear-ings in front of judges. And that probably strikes you and I as being unusual, that the government attorney would not be there. Have you heard that? Was it a practice? Is it still a practice?

Ms. SALDANA. That is an issue that I am sure would have come to my attention if it were in any way systemic. Has one missed a hearing here or there? You know, I would not be apprised to that. But I assure you that I have met so many of these attorneys, I can-not imagine that being a practice and a report that is really valid. I am not familiar with the report you are talking about, but our lawyers would not just ignore a court setting.

Mr. GOWDY. Well, that is why I ask. And I will make no pre-sumptions as to the validity of that report. But if you could have

65

someone, not yourself, but just somebody check to see whether or not that is currently an issue or was an issue in the past. It is hard for me to understand how the government could be represented if the attorney does not show up. But you would have that same feel-ing because you had the same job. So last two issues: sanctuary Cities.

When I go back home, and I suppose it is true for Johnny in Texas, it is really hard for the people we represent to understand, particularly in light of what they perceive to be a Federal Govern-ment that is willing to get involved in certain State and local issues, not being as animated about jurisdictions; they consider themselves sanctuary cities. So I heard you say you are working on it. Other than the power of persuasion, which may or may not work, what tools do you need to be able to get local jurisdictions to cooperate?

Ms. SALDANA. I am going to have to tout our success, though, Congressman, with respect to the 17 of the 25 that I targeted. The 25 that have the most impact on our declined detainers. We have 17 working in a very robust manner with us. So the Secretary did something right in his communications with local law enforcement in different places that he went to as the deputy and myself per-sonally did.

But I believe our message is getting through. I think that is an indication of our message getting through, that there are real prob-lems, not the least of which is the safety of our officers who are going out there to make apprehensions because we could not get the cooperation of a local jail to turn over folks. But we continue in our work.

I think there are some communities that I am just not sure we are ever going to get to the point we need to get to, but we are going to keep trying, all of us. I have that specific instruction from the Secretary.

Mr. GOWDY. All right. Last question. Zadvydas, there are not that many things on Capitol Hill that are bipartisan, but dealing with the decision in Zadvydas would be one of them. I have had a number of my friends on the other side of the aisle have constitu-ents impacted by that Supreme Court decision.

What can we do or what can you and I and you and Congress do together? It is impossible to explain to constituents why, in some instances, countries who benefit from foreign aid from us will not accept their foreign nationals back. It is just hard to explain that. So what do we need to do to get the State Department more fully engaged, so it is not you and me answering the question? Be-cause it is really up to them. So what can Congress do about Zadvydas?

Ms. SALDANA. I see two different issues here. One is the work with the countries that are not taking their people back, and the other one is the decision that compels us to release people. Sir, I have read that decision; I do not know if you have. It is very legal in nature, but the bottom line there is the constitutional concerns of holding somebody indefinitely when there is little chance that we are going to be able to return them to their countries.

You are right; none of our people like doing that. And it hurts us in our heart of hearts that that is the deal. But I am happy to

66

consider, and work with you, any options that you have with re-spect to those countries, I am working diligently with Michelle Bond, the Chief of Consular Affairs. She has really taken a per-sonal interest and made a commitment to me that we are going to take a look at each one of these countries and do what we can.

The world is a complicated place, as you know, and I would not put myself in the shoes of the Department of State to know all the ramifications of a sanctions decision, for example, against a country with whom our relationship is complex, to say the least. And I do not know all of those ramifications. All I know is that I have a dif-ficult problem to deal with, and she is working with me at Depart-ment of State to try to get to a better place than we are today.

Mr. GOWDY. Well, with the indulgence of my friend from Cali-fornia, because this is a bipartisan issue, Congresswoman Lofgren and I have discussed it; Congressman Courtney has an issue, Con-gressman Welch on the other side of the aisle. What is the domi-nant explanation given from countries who will not accept their na-tionals? What is their excuse for not doing so?

Ms. SALDANA. Quite frankly, in many instances, there is no ex-planation. Some of the factors are instability of a country. I mean, what do we do with Syrians, you know, returning them to the coun-try? That country is in the throes of terrible turmoil.

So, often, it is instability; it is a claim that our proof of citizen-ship is not sufficient, even though we believe it is. It is the lack of records and the lack of records kept by certain governments that they just do not value recordkeeping the way we do, and so estab-lishing citizenship becomes a problem. It is a varied picture of things that are brought up to us as to why they will not accept their people back.

Mr. GOWDY. All right. I would ask my friend from California if he had any concluding remarks. We want to, on behalf of all of us, thank you for your service and for your testimony today. And these Members will have 5 legislative days to submit questions to the record. And with that, we thank you for your time.

Ms. SALDANA. Thank you. [Whereupon, at 12:36 p.m., the Committee adjourned subject to

the call of the Chair.]

(67)

A P P E N D I X

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

68

*Note: The Committee did not receive a response from this witness at the time this hearing record was finalized and printed.

Questions for the Record submitted to the Honorable Sarah Saldana, Direc-tor, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Home-land Security*

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

Æ